I've been trying to hold my peace, here, but there seems to be a knee-
jerk assumption amongst many here on the list that certain genres
(including huge swaths of popular music) are inherently inferior,
simply by virtue of being dissimilar to the genre of music one is most
comfortable with.
Based on a lot of comments on this list, I would assume that I'm very
much in the minority here in that I actually follow what is going on
in contemporary rock and pop. For instance, I'm not sure how many
people here are familiar with the artists who top the list of the
annual Idolator pop critics poll (which has now pretty much supplanted
the Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll):
http://pop.idolator.com/318995/idolator-pop-07-albums
Of the top 15, the only ones I'm not familiar with are Miranda Lambert
and Burial. I don't get out to a lot of rock and hiphop shows these
days, but still, I've heard four of the top 15 in concert (LCD
Soundsystem, Arcade Fire, Radiohead, and Feist), and they are all
genuinely creative artists with compelling things to say. They have
varying levels of technical sophistication, at least in the terms that
people on this list are used to measuring such things. (Radiohead is
obviously at the top of the "technical sophistication" list -- their
guitarist, Johnny Greenwood, was the composer-in-residence for the BBC
Concert Orchestra, and has been widely praised for his score for
_There Will Be Blood_.) But they _all_ make emotionally sophisticated,
complex, artful music. Lyrically and musically, I will take almost any
of their songs over tunes like "If I Were A Bell" or "The Surrey With
The Fringe On Top."
I also recently had occasion to hear a critically-praised staging _Il
barbiere di Siviglia_ at the Met -- a friend was able to get me some
very good seats for free. The experience was godawful. The singing was
technically excellent but completely lifeless, and it was by far the
worst acting I have ever seen on a professional stage of any kind --
zero emotional connection between any of the performers, no sense of
comic timing whatsoever The Met Orchestra played the hell out of the
overture, but then settled back into complete autopilot for the rest
of the production. I don't think I've ever been as bored in my life.
I have never heard any rock band phone it in as shamelessly or perform
with as little conviction as all of those highly-trained and highly-
paid musicians and singers. (I'm quite sure it happens, especially at
big stadium shows, but that's why I don't generally go to big stadium
shows.) I don't listen to music to be impressed by the performer's
impeccable technique or the composer's clever voice-leading or the
lyricist's witty turn of phrase. I listen to music because I want to
hear an artist *say something* important and meaningful, something
that resonates with my own experience on a fundamental level.
There are artists with meaningful things to say working in all genres
of music. Some of them are technically very polished (in a traditional
sense) and some of them are not, but the ones who are not as polished
do not generally succeed unless they learn how to make a virtue of
their limitations. I don't listen to Thelonious Monk and think "gee,
if only he had Oscar Peterson's chops," and similarly I don't listen
to Win Butler of the Arcade Fire and think, "gee, I wish he could sing
like Celine Dion."
It's fine if you don't like what's going on in indie rock and hiphop
and such like today -- everyone's entitled to their own preferences,
after all. But I happen to think there's a lot of interesting,
exciting, meaningful, creative music being made, so I'd appreciate it
if people who do not actually follow what is going on in those circles
would refrain from making sweeping dismissals. The corollary of
Sturgeon's Law is that 10% of EVERYTHING is NOT crap. That applies
across the board, irrespective of genre and irrespective of
traditional notions of what counts as "art."
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Mar 2008 at 17:03, dhbailey wrote:
Who's to say that it was the worst in American pop -- if a lot of
people
like something in the arts who is to say it's a bad thing?
I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Sturgeon's law doesn't say
anything about popularity, only about (presumed) actual merit. And
one reading of it would be to explicitly say that 90% of what is
popular is crap.
I think competence is underrated these days, and there's an awful lot
of music that is dreck that is actually rather well put together.
True, it's often in the service of music (and lyrics) that is
substandard, but competent execution is something that I think is
often insufficiently recognized.
Nobody would call the Village People brilliant, but if you listen
closely, there's an awful lot of really good stuff going on there
(even if the bass lines and chord progressions are awkward and
sometimes outright *wrong*).
Nobody eats bubble gum for nutrition, but it's quite fun for
entertainment.
I guess I'm saying that even crap has its place.
--
David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
