Disposable music

P Gleespen · Post by **P Gleespen** » 21 May 2001 3:40 am

(in Homer Simpson's drooling voice)

"mmmmm, Surfin' Bird...."

Surfin' Bird may very well be, in my opinion, the single greatest ode to birds on surfboards ever written.

(on a slightly related note, I was just in NYC and they were having the annual Joey Ramone birthday bash. Very sad. The Ramones were one of my first favorite bands.)

One man's trash is another man's garbage, the removal of which is still another man's job.

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 21 May 2001 7:13 am

It is instructive to witness the fact that what one person likes, another dislikes. Yes, to like something is to place a value or worth on it, and this is a subjective process that differs from listener to listener.

But, a person often grows to dislike what was once liked, and base this on what he himself perceives to be a growing refinement on his part. Is it not also true that while one person is in his mind enjoying himself, ninety-nine other people may be observing him with the opinion that he is destroying himself, and possibly those around him? There have been countless examples in history of an entire people behaving in a way that was in their mind enjoyable and right. But, in time a wider consensus develops, perhaps including the people themselves, that they were deeply misled.

If the idea that one person's subjective experience at any particular moment is to be equally valued when in opposition to any number of other opinions is accepted as the standard by which we are to judge music's inherent value, than there in fact is nothing further to talk about.

But, I must point out that this is itself a subjectively conceived opinion that is perhaps being touted as an objective truth. I think there are other standards by which to make judgements of ultimate worth, that do not include the subjectively conceived notion that one person's enjoyment elevates something to an equal standing with anything else.

Respectfully,

Jeff S. [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 May 2001 at 08:48 AM.]

nick allen · Post by **nick allen** » 21 May 2001 7:54 am

Jeff Smith -
Very true, and very cogently put... possibly a little over-refined for a discussion of what is, after all, ultimately *only* popular music

Freddy & The Dreamers will always put a smile on my face (I guess I grew up in the wrong environment for Surfer Bird...

)... and their music was never meant to do anything more than that (aside from make money, of course).
MOST "popular artists" make MOSTLY "disposable" music - I don't care if it's Willie Nelson, Frank Sinatra, the Beatles, Elvis, Hank Williams, or whoever... (not to say that all of the above did not ALSO produce lasting, eminently "non-disposable" music) and inevitably, that is more and more so today as more and more entertainment media compete for that "15 minutes of fame"...
Light, meaningless entertainment always had, and always will have, its place - and it's being produced more professionally today than ever before.
Nick

Antolina · Post by **Antolina** » 21 May 2001 8:36 am

Disposable music? Heck it's all disposable. What's hot today will be passe' and forgotten in a month save those rendered as classics or standards which BTW usually are the simpler easily remembered tunes. My gut feeling with these ongoing debates concerning new country vs. traditional is that the conflict lies somewhere in chronology. Young musicians perhaps in their mid twenties plus or minus, didn't grow up on Patsy, Bob Wills, Little Jimmy, Roy Acuff, Webb Pierce ... "There stands a glass", Buck and Merle to name but a few. I personally cut my teeth on The Son's of the Pioneers. (who???) Paul wrapped it nicely when he said "writers are influenced by what they hear"and how true that is. We old timers will always long for the good ole days but as John Prine so eloquently put it..."Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps". It is what it is. As someone else posted on the forum, We now have "greeting card lyrics" and in his perspective he's 100% right. Some of the greatest songwriters of our time will never be famous for a myriad of reasons from corporate structure to changing tastes. Old Timey gave way to Swing, Swing gave way to Honky Tonk and somewhere along the line came Bluegrass, Folk, Bill, Bob and others. Whatever is to follow will follow. Blues and Jazz have their own sub sections as does Rock, Pop, country and Gospel. It's an ever changing scene in an ever changing world. Do I think we're being force fed new country? Of course I do. I believe we here in America are always sold and told what's hip and what's not. Consider the baggy pants with exposed underwear. Is this a natural evolution of style? Very doubtful. Our kids were told it's hip to dress that way by the ad agencies and like the good little lemmings we all are they gratefully obliged. So too with the marketed music scene. It's all good. I love hearing all of you young and old, pros and amatuers alike as we exchange our likes, dislikes and changes yet to come. Like it or not Jo Messina, Shania, Garth, Tim, Faith and the like have come to fill in the blanks and here we are. What will evolve? Who knows. Will country disappear? No more so than Jazz, Bluegrass, Soul, Gospel, Folk anon......I believe that as long as emotions exist so too will it's reflections in music. Will the steel guitar disappear? Ask Paul. I think he and others are still making a living at it. .....RC

PS: ERIK ...Your key phrase was "thinking progressively". In most realities that means change and change is always uncomfortable. Be well...rc

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 21 May 2001 9:47 am

RC,
Thats the ticket, "Change is always uncomfortable"! Theresa

Sage · Post by **Sage** » 21 May 2001 10:52 am

Jeff- I hear your question as- "what is quality?". It is a good question. Robert Pirsing explored that in "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
My short response is -the only objective view is that of the critic. But as you know, everyone's a critic.

My favorite version of Surfin' Bird is by the Cramps. It could only have been better if Chas Smith had been playing high speed Ralph Mooney licks behind them.
From the shores of Lake Calhoun, former home of both Robert Pirsing AND the Trashmen-
Sage

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 21 May 2001 1:40 pm

There's a lot to bounce off of in this thread.

America are always sold and told what's hip and what's not. Consider the baggy pants with exposed underwear.

and this is from the jail house uniform where they don't have belts, which opens up a whole 'nother topic.

About 30 years ago I was studying composition with James Tenney, one of the assignments was to bring in an example of 'bad' music and explain to the class why it was bad, I'm sure you can imagine the results. This followed a class where we were all connected and blindfolded and led on a tour through the building to listen to the different spaces and sounds. When we returned to the class we were asked "Did any of the sounds we just heard not fulfill all of the requirements to be music and why?"

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 21 May 2001 2:12 pm

A couple of years ago I was at a concert by the Bang On A Can Allstars. This is music that for the most part I don't enjoy, however the level of musicianship and ensemble playing was jaw-dropping and that's what I enjoyed.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>had Paul doing some of the steel parts. I don't see how ANYONE could listen impartially to much of the current country
and not be tremendously impressed by the level of musicianship, and the talent with which parts are added and<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This brings brings up the question are we focussed on the level of musicianship because the music is so uninteresting or because we're steel players listening to how Paul interprets it. There's a recording of 'Dark was the Night, Cold was the Ground' by I believe Blind Willie Jefferson that's full of the scratches and pops of an old 78. When I first heard it, it was so engaging I never heard the backround noise.

erik · Post by **erik** » 21 May 2001 2:25 pm

ebb, i have heard of Glenn Gould, i just didn't understand how you were applying it to me.

I do not play steel, and at no time on this forum did i ever claim to. I am a fan of the instrument and it's players. As far as playing other instruments, i am but mediocre. I know enough to write a song. That's what i think i can do best, and i will give you an opportunity to hear some in the not too distant future. Irregardless, i don't believe one has to have chops to have a good ear.

Antolina · Post by **Antolina** » 21 May 2001 3:12 pm

Chas.....Perhaps the baggy pants was a poor analogy but I was trying to make a point about marketing. Apologies if offended. BTW. I seriously want to know more about the blindfold experience. Now this is something worth exploring. After all music IS a compodium of noises.....RC

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 21 May 2001 3:53 pm

Chas-

Since you quoted me above, and asked a very perceptive and sensitive question, let me venture a response.

Part of my listening recently HAS been with a much revived interest that has to do with my learning the steel, and hungrily digesting things from this new perspective. So, you're right on with that one.

The first reason that you suggested, Focusing on the level of musicianship as an alternative to actually enjoying the music, is a little more sticky. I should say that the other day I was listening to Patty Loveless, who I actually DO like alot, and have for years. This was the main music I was referring specifically to above, that Paul did some of the parts on. Like someone said above, even the "great" artists produced a lot of filler material, and Patty's material over the years is no different.

But for me, Patty is more the exception than the rule, in that most of the new stuff I don't have much of an emotional connection with. I could name a few other favorites, but that's beside the point.

There are many examples I can think of, where the level of musicianship to me is extremely impressive, but often times I personally do not feel compelled to buy the CD, or repeat the experience of listening. In the new country that is often but not always my personal "subjective" experience, but I must stop short of trying to elevate that into an objective truth. I often times say "Wow!" on an intellectual level, but am left behind emotionally. I am open to a change of perspective, and the possibility that I am missing something.

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 21 May 2001 3:56 pm

Sage-

I read Pirsig's book a long time ago, but probably before I was ready for it. Maybe I should dig it out of the closet!

erik · Post by **erik** » 21 May 2001 5:30 pm

Jeff wrote:

I often times say "Wow!" on an intellectual level, but am left behind emotionally.

I like this one. The complexity of our emotional make-up may be reflected in the style of music we prefer. So if we are turned on by simple melodies and harmonies we are most likely emotionally fragile beings. Also, if we fail to grow musically, are we an obsessive and/or compulsive personality. hmm.

I owe myself $90. LOL[This message was edited by erik on 21 May 2001 at 06:31 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 22 May 2001 9:04 am

RC - I'm not offended, no apologies necessary in fact I think that mature people don't get offended even when something is offensive. My take on the gang attire/jail house look is that it's an extension of the juvenile delinquent look of the '50s, but like everything else today, much more extreme. Guns instead of fists, I live in the Valley, so everyday the paper has a list of shootings that are so common, they don't make it to the front section, drugs that make what was available to us seem innocuous by comparison. I don't want this to sound like I'm on a soap-box because as unsettling as this evolution may be, it's also fascinating to watch.

The last time I was in Las Vegas, I felt like I was in a pinball machine and I was the pinball. I was so bombarded with lights, sound, noise, movement and other distractions that I was numb, which is good for the casino. By the same token, the media we're all exposed to is meant to have the same effect. As an aside, I was at the movies last night, and before the previews, they were playing new songs by has-beens tailored for the'adult-contemporary' market. It also seems like they are running out of superlatives to pitch us with as one of the songs, that in my opinion wasn't worthy of elevator music, was described as being transcendental by the voice-over.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I seriously want to know more about the blindfold experience. Now this is something worth exploring.
After all music IS a compodium of noises.....RC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Back to an earlier comment, one man's noise is another man's music. The blindfold experience could turn into a mini-dissertation. Briefly, that was 1972 and my musical experience at that point was limited to American and white European. The idea was basically to open up the possibilities of what could be music. Everywhere we go now we're surrounded by 4/4 time, 8-tone scales and simple melody over harmony. In other cultures, what we consider to be noise is used in combination with pitches, and space, or silences, are as equally important as sounds. In western music, the silences are typically the spaces between notes so that there's rhythm.
Also there was the indeterminacy of the sounds which contradicts our need to control them, which could lead to a discussion on controlling the amount of indeterminacy in a composition. You could, for instance, write a piece where the instructions were to go to the corner of 6th and Main and listen from 2:15 to 2:30. You as a composer could appropriate those sounds as your piece and it would be valid. Also, I think it was about developing an appreciation of the sounds around us and that music doesn't have to be limited to formal surroundings.[This message was edited by chas smith on 22 May 2001 at 12:13 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 22 May 2001 9:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>i don't believe one has to have
chops to have a good ear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you have to know anything about composition to appreciate great composition, I do think, however that if you do, it enhances the listening experience. I don't think having a good ear is related to having chops. For me, I know how hard I've worked on my skills and they're barely passible so when I hear someone with great technique, I can really appreciate what it took to get there.

Antolina · Post by **Antolina** » 22 May 2001 1:51 pm

Chas....excellent reply. I agree. In the past 10-15 yrs native flute music came into vogue particularly amongst the new agers. I was intigued by the way some of these folks played European tempered sounds and tried passing it off as "traditional" native music (huh?). Doesn't take a genius to realize that their true 'music' was probably among the sounds of nature ie; birds, wind, rain et al with no regard to measures, bars, timing anon. Thanks for sharing

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 23 May 2001 6:44 am

Erik-

To be honest, in your quoting of me on the previous page and commentary below, I am uncertain of your intent. There seem to be roughly three possibilities:

1. You are assuming that I am more emotionally complex than would allow me to appreciate the simple melodies and harmonies of today's country music.

2. Although I am able to appreciate intellectually the musicianship of today's country, I haven't yet evolved to where I can follow it emotionally, and this suggests that I am emotionally fragile and possibly an obsessive-compulsive personality.

3. Your quoting of me was merely a vehicle to offer a psychological theory, and you really aren't commenting on me personally one way or the other.

Because of the friendly tone, I assumed initially the first above possibility, but looking just at the line of mine that you quoted, out of context with everything that I said above and around that, it would be easy to assume the second possibility.

Much of what I prefer to listen to is actually instrumental music, like jazz or the above mentioned Bach. I currently have a great fondness for the late string quartets of Beethoven. I think my ability to emotionally follow the complexities of these musics would suggest that my lack of emotional involvement with much of the current country isn't based on it's complexity.

On the other hand, of late I've been seeking out various older country works, for different reasons, and find a lot of this emotionally satisfying. Back a few years, I went through a period where I appreciated and listened to Nirvana quite a bit, which I guess you probably wouldn't consider too harmonically complex.

I listen to different types of music for different reasons, some simple melodically and harmonically, and some complex. I think my being "left behind emotionally" by much of modern country has to do with something besides its structural complexity or lack of it.

Jeff S. [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 23 May 2001 at 07:46 AM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 23 May 2001 9:06 am

It's harder for me to get emotionally involved in music that has no dynamic range.

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 23 May 2001 11:56 am

Bob,
Want to hear something odd? A few months back I played a slide solo on the song for the opening scene in "Bridget Jones Diary".
The musical editors from the UK were voicing the exact opposite opinion. They said traditional music is not as dynamic as todays new country music is for film and its emotional appeal is why its in more demand in films that have nothing to do with southern life.
I believe everything we hear is subjective.
As for emotional connections to songs,
I connect on a song by song basis and it doesn't matter what type of music it is, I still connect the same way.
Paul[This message was edited by Franklin on 23 May 2001 at 03:44 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 23 May 2001 2:49 pm

Yes, because if you can't connect in some capacity, the playing is going to sound mechanical. This is also why samplers and synthesizers, no matter how sophisticated they are, aren't going to be replacing humans any time soon. Even if the music budget dictates that most of the music comes from a 'box', there will still be live players to give it some life.
I suspect that part of the popularity of new country music might be that it's melodic without being regional and definative.[This message was edited by chas smith on 23 May 2001 at 04:37 PM.]

erik · Post by **erik** » 23 May 2001 3:13 pm

Jeff, i used your statement to advance my own theory, which i am now having trouble trying to clarify... as an intellectually complicated piece of music can also be emotional. However, something simple like Pachelbel's Canon can generate more tears from the average audience.

What i have observed though is that it seems the people who get the most upset over quality of songs tend to be people who prefer melodically simpler tunes. People who like more complex music don't seem to "fly off the handle" so quickly. That was really what i was trying to say. Sorry for the confusion.

I am not trying to insult people as i prefer the simpler tunes myself. Maybe some day i'll grow up.

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 23 May 2001 3:15 pm

Well, I'm not currently operating at the highest eschelon of the modern country field like Paul is,

but most of my copy band involvement playing lead guitar the last several years has been playing modern country. I too usually find it possible to find a song somewhat interesting and fun as long as I'm playing it, and I think having to play it makes one get inside of the original recording enough to appreciate the intelligence and talent of the people involved in it.

I think that the level of intelligence in it is a valid reason for appreciation. That too is a level of enjoyment. More mental than what one associates with listening to old blues and country, but valid in it's own way. I hope its understood that I'm not suggesting that I never derive ANY emotional satisfaction from listening to it, I'm just comparing my experience with modern country to other forms that are more personally meaningful emotionally.

Understanding that it is easier to form an emotional connection with a song that one is actually playing on, I'd be curious to know what kind of things Paul listens to when he just listens for himself. Paul, do you have a short list of favorites?

Eric, I guess we're on at the same time here. Thanks for your thoughts. I've been giving your ideas some consideration.

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 23 May 2001 at 04:18 PM.]

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 23 May 2001 3:18 pm

sounds of nature ie; birds, wind, rain et al with no regard to measures, bars, timing anon

Olivier Messiaen used to transcribe the birdsongs wherever he was for his wife, Yvonne Loriod, a concert pianist.
Wind and rain, in the early 1950s, Iannis Xenakis was listening to the sounds of rain drops on the roof and applause at the stadium and was looking for how to recreate those kinds of sounds with an orchestra.

However, something simple like Pachelbel's Canon can

Buddy made a recording of Taco Bell's Canon somewhere back there.[This message was edited by chas smith on 23 May 2001 at 04:25 PM.]

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 23 May 2001 3:24 pm

Not quite as back to nature as what Chas is referring to, but I've had some powerful experiences listening to Indian music. There is NO harmony, unless unintentional, but the melody is much more subtle than the twelve tone system. For a time I really felt "square".

ebb · Post by **ebb** » 23 May 2001 5:04 pm

and if Quatuor pour la Fin du Temps doesn't get them remember

something simple like Pachelbel's Canon can generate more tears from the average audience

[This message was edited by ebb on 23 May 2001 at 06:07 PM.]