Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - A little musical philosophy: re: why rap sucks

roachboy · 12-10-2007, 09:45 AM

here's an example...

it is not obvious how to listen to 12-tone music, not to mention the variety of approaches that have followed 12-tone music. it involves a break with modes of constructing phrases that a lot of folk are used to, for example, so that even quite sophisticated listeners who have not spent some time with this way of thinking about the relations amongst/between pitches may not hear any structure at all.

i remember when i was about 20 i had a music theory tutor who introduced me to anton webern's op. 30 for piano. it blew my mind. a little while later, my father was visiting--he was steeped in late haydn, beethoven, etc.--i played the webern for him and all he heard was chaos.

what is complexity?
is it alot of notes?
is it a function of contrapunctual movement?
is it a function of the organization of rhythm?
is a complex music one that stops and starts alot?
is there one standard for evaluating complexity?

what do you do with the simple fact that complexity operates with reference to ways of ordering sound that you already know, and seems to work only in relation to what you already know--so that if you encounter types of organization you are not familiar with, you do not hear complexity, but only disorder?

this is not the same as saying that appreciation is subjective...more that it is relative. from a certain viewpoint, radiohead songs are kind of complex--from another, they are inventive reworkings of a form that is in itself very limited in terms of organizational options, relations to pitch and timbre and rhythm...but not terribly complex.

from the above, it kinda follows that the problem i really had with lak's op is the decision to rule out forms of sound organization as "music"...

the way i look at it, folk who devote themselves to a craft are to be supported, even if you don't particularly like the results. their committment is not yours, and does not have to be. so when you say "x is not music" what it seems to me that you are doing mostly is dissing the committments of the musicians who work within that form--the form you are obviously free to make of what you like, but to say that the form you dislike isn't music seems absurd.

12-10-2007, 09:45 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here's an example... it is not obvious how to listen to 12-tone music, not to mention the variety of approaches that have followed 12-tone music. it involves a break with modes of constructing phrases that a lot of folk are used to, for example, so that even quite sophisticated listeners who have not spent some time with this way of thinking about the relations amongst/between pitches may not hear any structure at all. i remember when i was about 20 i had a music theory tutor who introduced me to anton webern's op. 30 for piano. it blew my mind. a little while later, my father was visiting--he was steeped in late haydn, beethoven, etc.--i played the webern for him and all he heard was chaos. what is complexity? is it alot of notes? is it a function of contrapunctual movement? is it a function of the organization of rhythm? is a complex music one that stops and starts alot? is there one standard for evaluating complexity? what do you do with the simple fact that complexity operates with reference to ways of ordering sound that you already know, and seems to work only in relation to what you already know--so that if you encounter types of organization you are not familiar with, you do not hear complexity, but only disorder? this is not the same as saying that appreciation is subjective...more that it is relative. from a certain viewpoint, radiohead songs are kind of complex--from another, they are inventive reworkings of a form that is in itself very limited in terms of organizational options, relations to pitch and timbre and rhythm...but not terribly complex. from the above, it kinda follows that the problem i really had with lak's op is the decision to rule out forms of sound organization as "music"... the way i look at it, folk who devote themselves to a craft are to be supported, even if you don't particularly like the results. their committment is not yours, and does not have to be. so when you say "x is not music" what it seems to me that you are doing mostly is dissing the committments of the musicians who work within that form--the form you are obviously free to make of what you like, but to say that the form you dislike isn't music seems absurd. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite