[Harp-L] music and perception (was Superstars in pop/rock music)

[David Fertig <drfertig@xxxxxxxxx>]

I appreciate Chris Michalek's frank and unreserved posting about music, and I appreciate JR's articulate response to what some less-sophisticated sorts might consider an arrogant, self-serving and self-congratulatory analyses by Chris. 

Try as I might, I could not formulate a reply nearly as good as JR's, because the complexity and arcane rules posited by the underlying post bewildered my un-enlightened self, so I could not appreciate the argument and thus could not comprehend how right it was, nor how wrong I am not to appreciate music that sometimes sounds to my anarchic and undiscerning ears like the bleatings of dying sheep.

Vive la difference.  Vive la revolution. 

And Vive the 10-hole diatonic harp which even dolts like me can use to find and bring beauty and solace!  

-Dave Fertig


From:"Jonathan Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [Harp-L] music and perception Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:23:50 -0400 To:harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx                
Chris M writes:

"It's all a matter of what you've conditioned yourself to accept into  
your reality.  Music has rules for listening and most of the time if  
you don't like the music then you don't understand it.

Bah.  This has been the elitist theory of music ever since people  
like Schoenberg started to write music which was sonically  
challenging, intellectually complex and not obviously connected to  
past forms or traditions.  The reason most people tend not to like  
Schoenberg, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman and the like is not because they  
don't understand it, it's because the music is often not pleasant to  
hear--it often grates, often clashes and despite what are sometimes  
very intellectually strong concepts appears aimless.  The elite  
theory has been to blame the audience, which I think misses the  
significant point entirely: that this is music designed to be complex  
and difficult to hear and play.  The fact that it turns off most  
people is not because they need to be educated or lack understanding,  
rather it's because the music is in many ways designed not to be  
easily accessible.  Romantic music is easily accessible (even if it  
took a while for people to warm up to Wagner's excessive  
Romanticism"); Schoenberg's entire work was to find a way out of the  
Romantic and to something new--which pretty much guaranteed that the  
result wouldn't be easily accessible.  Saying that it's merely a lack  
of "understanding" which keeps people from falling in love with a  
Schoenberg the way they love Mozart misses the main point of what  
their musics were intended to do.

Now, this shouldn't be misread as a screed against challenging  
musics.  Schoenberg is one of my favorite "classical" composers,  
Coleman and Ra two of my favorite Jazz musicians.  But, in large part  
that's because my initial reaction to their music was positive--I  
just liked it.  But the majority react in the opposite way when they  
first encounter those artists, and to me it is the height of snobbery  
to say "well, I like it because I understand it--if you [could]  
understand it you would like it to."  The "could" is usually unsaid,  
but strongly implied.

Chris again:

"Furthermore not everybody is able to interpret highly complex sheets  
of sonic information ie; jazz, prog rock, classical hindi, bulgarian  
etc.... just because a person's brain can't process incredible  
amounts of information doesn't mean he/she is dimwitted."

Um, it doesn't?

That said, I don't think there is anything to this argument about  
"highly complex sheets of sonic information"--basically, the greater  
the complexity of structure the less easily defined rhythms and  
melodies can be heard.  Guess what, some people like noise, some  
don't.  That's not a question of intellectual processing, it's a  
question of personal taste.  I happen to like noise; I can actually  
listen to a slowly filtered noise generator on a synthesizer for  
hours, hearing the various harmonics come in and out, preferably at a  
random or semi-random rate.  But that has nothing to do with  
"processing power" of my brain and everything to do with the fact  
that I liked to bang things together and see what sound they would  
make as a child.  I didn't pick out melodies or the like, I went for  
loud and clanging.  That's what I like, for whatever reason, and I  
the only way it is more complex is in the harmonic content, but  
that's something everyone can hear--just not everyone will like.

Ligeti wrote some pieces with "micropolyphony" about twenty or more  
little melodies going around one another at once (very soft and slow  
melodies, though).  It's massively complex, but anyone can hear what  
is going on--just most people find it boring.  That's not for a lack  
of ability to "process" things, just a reflection of the majority's  
tastes.


"There's no problem with only liking "simple" or less sonically  
saturated music, in a way it's very eastern and most people find  
peace eating only vanilla ice cream."


Actually, there's nothing "eastern" about it--some of the most  
harmonically complex musical forms come for "the East".  People like  
what they like.  Part of that is culturally derived, part is because  
we are all different and have different internal tastes which drive  
us.  I only like chocolate ice cream.  Why?  Because that's how I  
am.  I like Sun Ra.  Why?  Because it speaks to me.  That's not  
"eastern" or "western", it's just called being human--we are all  
different and will all have different tastes.

Finally, I mean no offense when I say this, but that clip was just  
horrid.  I know the pedigree of the musicians--and love some of their  
work in fact.  But I found little of worth in that clip--random  
noodling and scratching and not in a good way (trust me, I do know  
what good random noodling and scratching is).  Perhaps part of that  
is because it was a bunch of prog-rock musicians trying to do a free- 
jazz type thing.  Prog-rock is amongst the most heavily of structured  
rock formats, and while it often can have a similar sound to free  or  
avant jazz (in part because they are going for similar sonic  
textures) I think this clip goes a long way to show that being good  
in one genre does not guarantee being able to play in another genre.   
I tried it several times, and it just didn't improve with listening.   
Is that because I don't "understand" the genre or can't "process" the  
"sonically saturated music"--somehow I think the contents of my iPod  
would pretty much speak against those arguments.



  ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)---'