I had abandoned this one but it seems to have sprouted new leaves, and Derwood seems to have actually pinned down the idea I originally wanted to discuss...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
what about people appreciating the same music in two different ways? some like Tool because it is rooted in complex mathematical whatever, while some like it because it "rawks".
|
This is actually what I (was) saying. Different people take away different things from the same music. It's not really dividing the music,
unless this musicality is actually objective.
(Roach: Which is an idea I presented for discussion, not as my own truth. Thankyou.)
Quote:
|
i hate the whole "musicians are more qualified to distinguish between good and bad music" argument. just because you know the difference between keys and chord forms and time signatures doesn't make you any more qualified to say what people should or shouldn't like.
|
No it doesn't, and it shouldn't. 'Like' is the keyword there, 'like'. There's no accounting for taste, but perhaps music
can be "bad" and can be enjoyed anyway. I'm not necessarily sticking to this, it stems from the original proposal.
Quote:
|
My wife listens to complete shit music (by my standards) but does that mean she shouldn't listen to it?
|
And it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it either... in a type II way.
For example... and this really made me grin, cos I just borrowed the whole Dream Theatre back catalogue from a mate of mine who completely jizzes over them
Quote:
|
what's hilarious is whenever i get into this type of argument with music student snobs, i invariably come to find that they like bands like Dream Theater
|
Heres what I think about Dream Theatre. I will probably cop some flak for this.
I only have an interest in Dream Theatre because I think Rudess has a cool style. Overall I find the lyrics to be weak and generic, although the singer has good technique. There are some songs that have a danceable energy to them, and some which are just boring. Overall I'd say the band isn't that great, although credit for deliberately trying to mix things up with unexpected time signatures. I'd still go to a DT gig for a kick ass Type II experience. But its Type I when I listen academically only to concentrate on the keyboards.
Anyone relate to this?
An aside:
Cage's
4:33 is an infamous piece, but one that I find interesting in an academic (Type I?) way. If anyone's unfamiliar with this, its 4:33 of silence performed on the piano. And yet, its not silence. The idea is that the contents of the piece, and what you should be listening to, is whatever ambient noise is going on around you during that time, whether performed or recorded. The point is that there is (what cage considers) musical noise going on around us all the time.
I find this to be a profound idea, and one that was worth exploring. But I wouldn't listen to this song for fun. Using my own personal criteria, I'd evaluate this song to have absolutely zero type II value. However, while I simply couldn't imagine it having Type II value for anyone at all, someone who has studied higher levels of music, is more familiar with Cage's philosophy and body of work, or even has been into music in general for longer than I have might be 'more qualified' to make that assessment. I can make it for myself. But he might be able to tell me I'm wrong. It doesn't mean I have to dance to 4:33.