4 ms·

The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a — likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. People ap

by adw 3y ago

The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a — likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. People appear to enjoy things which are bitter, or ugly, or complex, or an acquired taste. Either they're all lying posers, which certainly some people believe, or there really is something to Scotch whisky or James Joyce or Autechre which speaks to some people and not to others. I believe the latter, and I feel sorry for the former. The idea that human experience would be so narrow that some forms of expression are good and all others are bad on a single axis! And music, especially, one of the most cultural-context dependent forms. A bunch of traditions wouldn't even recognise the Western canon, which tends to seriously lack rhythmic complexity, _as_ worthwhile music. So: taste varies and that's the point. I love Autechre, and I find real beauty in their work, but I would place significant money that more than half of the audience here would find this – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev3vENli7wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev3vENli7wQ – somewhere between modem line-noise and actively painful. Is it pretty in the way, say, Teenage Fanclub (who are also magnificent) are pretty? No. It's not trying to be. It's communicating something else.

agalunar 3y ago
> The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a – likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. Where are you getting this impression from? I just went back through the piece and can't find a place where the author implies that "music they don't like must be a (political) statement" whatsoever.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > Where are you getting this impression from? This part: The station prides itself on operating without any government funding, which in turn requires it to play music that people enjoy hearing and never the kind that some stations (and performing ensembles) play just because it’s avant-garde or purports to make some political statement.
  - adw 3y ago
    Yes, exactly that bit. This is a cultural-conservative screed in Sunday dress.
    - agalunar 3y ago
      That's not the only way to interpret that passage (it's not how I interpreted the passage, in any case). There's no contradiction in saying "pop music is also popular and so our station also has programs that play pop music". In fact, I took the author as meaning "there is some classical music that people only play b/c it's avant garde or political, &c, but the subset of classical music that we happen to play is what people request". And I'm not even sure that's a criticism of those other subgenres of classical music – more an observation on the general population's preferences and the influence of funding on the programming decisions of radio stations. edit: to be clear, I vigorously agree with everything else you wrote in your first comment! I just want to assume good faith for the author of the featured piece.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fweimer 3y ago
    Any idea what kind of broadcasting practices the author might be alluding to? I doubt it's about union songs. Is it about representation issues? I'm not sure if there's even attempt do address that in classical music broadcasting. (Women composers are very much underrepresented in the scores that survived.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FPGAhacker 3y ago
After reading your post I was expecting the author to rant against other types of music. It’s nothing of the sort. He does mention at one point that there is such a thing as music that purports to be political. I struggle to understand how you came away from the article with a response like that.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Because it's the only semi-interesting point he makes in the entire article, the rest of which is more like a very short musical biography.
bigbillheck 3y ago
The site itself is also highly political, and the author even more so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Martin_Center_for_Academic_Renewal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Martin_Center_for_Aca... https://www.jamesgmartin.center/author/georgeleef/ https://www.jamesgmartin.center/author/georgeleef/ https://www.nationalreview.com/author/george-leef/ https://www.nationalreview.com/author/george-leef/
- FPGAhacker 3y ago
  Maybe so, I have no idea who they are and afaik I haven’t been to the site before. But that certainly was not a political article.
retrac 3y ago
There's also simultaneous appreciation and aversion. There's some experimental and challenging modern classical compositions that I can appreciate aesthetically but which are, at the same time, almost painfully unlistenable. Steve Reich's Four Organs is a good example [1]. It's music, I hear the structure of the music, my mood shifts with the music, yet after a few minutes... aaaaaaaaaaghh! turn it off!!! In the dramatic arts, there's the whole genre of horror. I'm fairly sure this extends to foods. Some people like to eat foods that are right on that threshold between triggering intolerable revulsion and excitement. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yTZmMgI5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yTZmMgI5I
- adw 3y ago
  The whole stunt-hot-sauce phenomenon is exactly that.
- demux 3y ago
  Krzysztof Penderecki is also on the list of revolutionary but unlistenable.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  > In the dramatic arts, there's the whole genre of horror. For me that would be tragedies: characters being stupid and obnoxious just to make sure it all ends up very badly. All the more infuriating when there are good tragedies out there, where the drives and struggles of the characters actually make sense. Last one I recall was Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. (Edit: just listened to the organs, it is SO slow. And what, a single chord? To be honest I don’t find enough information in there, it’s boring to the point of torture.)
- DoingSomeThings 3y ago
  Steve Reich is a fantastic example. Four Organs is unlistenable to me, but I find Music for 18 Musicians and Electric Counterpoint beautiful. Part of it comes from performance exposure. I enjoy music I've studied and devoted time to understanding well enough to play. As a percussionist, I find Clapping Music enthralling. Pure rhythm. Nothing else. I'm under no illusion, however, that this is mass market appeal. That's ok with me.
loup-vaillant 3y ago
> The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a — likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. You’re putting words in the author’s mouth. Here’s the relevant paragraph: > The station prides itself on operating without any government funding, which in turn requires it to play music that people enjoy hearing and never the kind that some stations (and performing ensembles) play just because it’s avant-garde or purports to make some political statement. Simply put, "We don’t play music just because it’s innovative or political." Here’s the thing: sometimes people make a very crappy execution out of a silly idea nobody’s done before (because it’s silly), and we call that "contemporary art" in an attempt to belong to some wealthy in-group (and sometimes end up helping money laundering). Sometimes (not always of course), the "avant-garde" label is just a cover-up for unskilled crap. One way to know the difference: would it still be art if it was done by a slum boy instead of some famous dude? And of course, political art is often sub-par, for two reasons: first, there is more art out there than just the one that support your particular cause. Smaller pool to draw from, less quality: good luck winning the Olympics if you don’t train many many gymnasts. Second, we tend to tolerate worse art when it happens to support our cause. Not saying that innovation and politics always hurt art. Often it’s the exact opposite. Music in particular is particularly enjoyable when it contains just the right amount of surprise. Too many surprises and it might as well be random. But do something predictable, and insert here and there ideas that have never been heard before, and it can really blossom (since "surprise" here is fundamentally subjective as a matter of information theory, some music really is an acquired taste, even though it really sounds random to the uninitiated). Same thing for politics: just go see the Andor Star Wars series, it is highly political in a way that enhances it. But if you select art just because it is innovative or political, you’ll end up with something worse than if you just selected for the good stuff. I mean is it any surprise that if you select for the wrong criteria you’ll get disappointing results?
- adw 3y ago
  The author is putting words in performers and presenters' mouths, so I read this as the absolute opposite. (Also, check out the rest of the site; this is a religious right-wing culture-war organ, so I am confident in my read here.) > Simply put, "We don’t play music just because it’s innovative or political." No, "the only reason I can see for them to be playing this is because it's innovative or political". Maybe so, or maybe — I'd contend, more likely — they just like it and this author happens to be deaf to the aspects of it they like.
ae_throw 3y ago
As an Ae fan I second this, and not in a snobbish way. I used to find Gantz Graf slightly jarring now it’s warm and fuzzy and melodic in many ways but man it took years of listening to them, album by album, to develop that ear. Still, I think Tri Repetae, Oversteps are some of their fuzziest works, and then of course Incunabula and Amber for easy listening.

by adw 3y ago

agalunar 3y ago

> The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a – likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. Where are you getting this impression from? I just went back through the piece and can't find a place where the author implies that "music they don't like must be a (political) statement" whatsoever.

bigbillheck 3y ago
> Where are you getting this impression from? This part: The station prides itself on operating without any government funding, which in turn requires it to play music that people enjoy hearing and never the kind that some stations (and performing ensembles) play just because it’s avant-garde or purports to make some political statement.
- adw 3y ago
  Yes, exactly that bit. This is a cultural-conservative screed in Sunday dress.
  - agalunar 3y ago
    That's not the only way to interpret that passage (it's not how I interpreted the passage, in any case). There's no contradiction in saying "pop music is also popular and so our station also has programs that play pop music". In fact, I took the author as meaning "there is some classical music that people only play b/c it's avant garde or political, &c, but the subset of classical music that we happen to play is what people request". And I'm not even sure that's a criticism of those other subgenres of classical music – more an observation on the general population's preferences and the influence of funding on the programming decisions of radio stations. edit: to be clear, I vigorously agree with everything else you wrote in your first comment! I just want to assume good faith for the author of the featured piece.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fweimer 3y ago
  Any idea what kind of broadcasting practices the author might be alluding to? I doubt it's about union songs. Is it about representation issues? I'm not sure if there's even attempt do address that in classical music broadcasting. (Women composers are very much underrepresented in the scores that survived.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FPGAhacker 3y ago

After reading your post I was expecting the author to rant against other types of music. It’s nothing of the sort. He does mention at one point that there is such a thing as music that purports to be political. I struggle to understand how you came away from the article with a response like that.

bowsamic 3y ago
Because it's the only semi-interesting point he makes in the entire article, the rest of which is more like a very short musical biography.

bigbillheck 3y ago

The site itself is also highly political, and the author even more so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Martin_Center_for_Academic_Renewal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Martin_Center_for_Aca... https://www.jamesgmartin.center/author/georgeleef/ https://www.jamesgmartin.center/author/georgeleef/ https://www.nationalreview.com/author/george-leef/ https://www.nationalreview.com/author/george-leef/

FPGAhacker 3y ago
Maybe so, I have no idea who they are and afaik I haven’t been to the site before. But that certainly was not a political article.

retrac 3y ago

There's also simultaneous appreciation and aversion. There's some experimental and challenging modern classical compositions that I can appreciate aesthetically but which are, at the same time, almost painfully unlistenable. Steve Reich's Four Organs is a good example [1]. It's music, I hear the structure of the music, my mood shifts with the music, yet after a few minutes... aaaaaaaaaaghh! turn it off!!! In the dramatic arts, there's the whole genre of horror. I'm fairly sure this extends to foods. Some people like to eat foods that are right on that threshold between triggering intolerable revulsion and excitement. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yTZmMgI5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yTZmMgI5I

adw 3y ago
The whole stunt-hot-sauce phenomenon is exactly that.
demux 3y ago
Krzysztof Penderecki is also on the list of revolutionary but unlistenable.
loup-vaillant 3y ago
> In the dramatic arts, there's the whole genre of horror. For me that would be tragedies: characters being stupid and obnoxious just to make sure it all ends up very badly. All the more infuriating when there are good tragedies out there, where the drives and struggles of the characters actually make sense. Last one I recall was Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. (Edit: just listened to the organs, it is SO slow. And what, a single chord? To be honest I don’t find enough information in there, it’s boring to the point of torture.)
DoingSomeThings 3y ago
Steve Reich is a fantastic example. Four Organs is unlistenable to me, but I find Music for 18 Musicians and Electric Counterpoint beautiful. Part of it comes from performance exposure. I enjoy music I've studied and devoted time to understanding well enough to play. As a percussionist, I find Clapping Music enthralling. Pure rhythm. Nothing else. I'm under no illusion, however, that this is mass market appeal. That's ok with me.

loup-vaillant 3y ago

> The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a — likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. You’re putting words in the author’s mouth. Here’s the relevant paragraph: > The station prides itself on operating without any government funding, which in turn requires it to play music that people enjoy hearing and never the kind that some stations (and performing ensembles) play just because it’s avant-garde or purports to make some political statement. Simply put, "We don’t play music just because it’s innovative or political." Here’s the thing: sometimes people make a very crappy execution out of a silly idea nobody’s done before (because it’s silly), and we call that "contemporary art" in an attempt to belong to some wealthy in-group (and sometimes end up helping money laundering). Sometimes (not always of course), the "avant-garde" label is just a cover-up for unskilled crap. One way to know the difference: would it still be art if it was done by a slum boy instead of some famous dude? And of course, political art is often sub-par, for two reasons: first, there is more art out there than just the one that support your particular cause. Smaller pool to draw from, less quality: good luck winning the Olympics if you don’t train many many gymnasts. Second, we tend to tolerate worse art when it happens to support our cause. Not saying that innovation and politics always hurt art. Often it’s the exact opposite. Music in particular is particularly enjoyable when it contains just the right amount of surprise. Too many surprises and it might as well be random. But do something predictable, and insert here and there ideas that have never been heard before, and it can really blossom (since "surprise" here is fundamentally subjective as a matter of information theory, some music really is an acquired taste, even though it really sounds random to the uninitiated). Same thing for politics: just go see the Andor Star Wars series, it is highly political in a way that enhances it. But if you select art just because it is innovative or political, you’ll end up with something worse than if you just selected for the good stuff. I mean is it any surprise that if you select for the wrong criteria you’ll get disappointing results?

adw 3y ago
The author is putting words in performers and presenters' mouths, so I read this as the absolute opposite. (Also, check out the rest of the site; this is a religious right-wing culture-war organ, so I am confident in my read here.) > Simply put, "We don’t play music just because it’s innovative or political." No, "the only reason I can see for them to be playing this is because it's innovative or political". Maybe so, or maybe — I'd contend, more likely — they just like it and this author happens to be deaf to the aspects of it they like.

ae_throw 3y ago

As an Ae fan I second this, and not in a snobbish way. I used to find Gantz Graf slightly jarring now it’s warm and fuzzy and melodic in many ways but man it took years of listening to them, album by album, to develop that ear. Still, I think Tri Repetae, Oversteps are some of their fuzziest works, and then of course Incunabula and Amber for easy listening.