Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Here is a philosophical article about how sound can be "a scaffold for thought when logic and imagery elude us". I thought music-lovers who frequent this happy little backwater of our forum might enjoy it.

[Sculptor1]

I've noticed this has never popped up on here.

I got to thinking about this as I'm wrapping up my coding for the day and feeling a bit blessed, ASC just dropped a gem and I realize this is a dimension that we often don't share on here.

I'll leave this up to moderating and if you think it's really not OPF material feel free to throw it out.

Garbage, sorry garage, no garbage..
Made by a Sixth Former with a bit of sampling kit and a sequencer. Yuk. Barely qualifies as music.

[Sculptor1]

Listening to Jeff Back's four best albums (according to AllMusic, and its users), on shuffle-play. A sadly neglected guitar talent. Some just don't quite make it as we think perhaps they deserve...?

**** Kewl.

I got a visit for me, my son, and my partner to go to Ronnie Scotts for my 50th birthday.
We saw Billy Cobham.
A great night.
I think it was this line -up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re92_-ASzfQ
[yid]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re92_-ASzfQ[/yid]

[Papus79]

Garbage, sorry garage, no garbage..
Made by a Sixth Former with a bit of sampling kit and a sequencer. Yuk. Barely qualifies as music.

My evolving understanding of this game - younger generations at least 'understand' older generation's music because they grew up with it (might end up being more empathetic than it's worth), older generations view any music by younger generations as garbage, therefore older generations win the music snobbery Olympics by default.

[Sy Borg]

You like all old the original versions of Gong, Floyd, Softs and Zappa while I like the more developed and accessible versions afterwards.

You say "developed", I say commercialised. Not that I blame any of them, but from an artistic purist's perspective, they sold out. They moved away from the imaginative creativity that fuelled their beginnings. And, in doing so, they achieved far more mainstream success, and hugely greater income. I don't think anyone could blame them for that. But Floyd never again approached the enchanting madness of the Crazy Diamond's lyrics, just as Gong became more, er, monochrome - but not less skilled - after Daevid.

I don't see these bands as selling out, rather, they matured. There is often something special and anarchic about a debut album - a lifetime's of ideas released in a flood (hence the "second album syndrome" as artists try to match their longstanding creative ideas with new ideas made up under pressure in just one year).

Floyd actually blossomed after Syd left. He provided the initial creative spark, but it soon ran out. Softs and Zappa tended towards the unlistenable early in their careers and then later, reduced the experiments and focused on making outstanding music.

The thing is, it was these experiments that lead to the uniqueness of the bands' music. Some experiments were less successful than others, of course. This is ever the way for pioneers. The artistic gift that these bands gave to music was something new; something unique. The production and presentation may not have the sophistication of later offerings, as the bands had yet to learn practical skills like production, or to work with those who already had those skills. But the artistic magic was there.

Bands like the Floyd and Hawkwind pioneered the use of electronic doodads in music, (soon) before the advent of synthesisers. Without their experiments to lead the way, this stuff would not have become available to music and musicians as a whole. Early Tangerine Dream albums also contributed here.

All that you say is true, or at the least, a valid opinion, but it does rather fail to recognise the efforts of these experimental bands, and the results those experiments gave to us, and to music. We are not arguing here, but simply exchanging and comparing perspectives.

Fair enough. I certainly respect those bands' experiments - their creativity, smarts and talent. Long ago, I kind of enjoyed them. Or tried to enjoy them. or told myself that I enjoyed them. How much weed was needed for young me to enjoy, say, Soft Machine's early endless and grating Farfisa organ solos? I can't say, I never managed to achieve that critical mass :) Much easier to enjoy Allan Holdsworth's epic solo in Hazard Profile:

By contrast, guitarist Allan Holdsworth never sold out and died with modest means. In that sense, it's darkly ironic that he was playing with Soft Machine at a time when purists claimed they had sold out. He was apparently not quite pure enough :lol:

The Softs' began as Robert Wyatt's band. Gradually, his influence lessened, and soon Mike Ratledge became the driving force. Not long afterwards, Wyatt broke his back, and his career took a sharp turn to an admirable (IMO) solo career. The Softs never really sold out, and they never made huge pop-star money either, they just had the usual 'creative differences' between band members. The 'purists' you refer to were only lamenting the loss of what they had, as the band's direction changed, as you pointed out in text I haven't quoted.
[/quote]
I like what Robert Wyatt did with Softs, especially his drumming before the accident, but his solo work does not do it for me.

Some similarities in the journeys of Wyatt, Syd Barrett and Daevid Allen in that each started a group that grew in different directions. Bob Fripp avoided this issue by breaking up the band whenever it looked like he was losing control of the group he always referred to as a "democracy" with a straight face. I suppose it almost fits today's definition of democracy, giving young people tremendous career choices, such as being able to choose between being a casual pizza delivery person or a casual cleaner :|

[Pattern-chaser]

I like what Robert Wyatt did with Softs, especially his drumming before the accident, but his solo work does not do it for me.

Just a quick aside to this conversation, that seems to be reaching its natural end: do you like Matching Mole? In between being ejected from the band he formed, and breaking his back, Robert Wyatt formed Matching Mole, a pun on the French Machine Molle ("Soft Machine"). Another fine little band, IMO.

[Sculptor1]

Garbage, sorry garage, no garbage..
Made by a Sixth Former with a bit of sampling kit and a sequencer. Yuk. Barely qualifies as music.

My evolving understanding of this game - younger generations at least 'understand' older generation's music because they grew up with it (might end up being more empathetic than it's worth), older generations view any music by younger generations as garbage, therefore older generations win the music snobbery Olympics by default.

No. You are wrong.
Some music is bad no matter when it was made, and some music is good though it was made yesterday.

Older music tends to be good, since the rubbish from the past gets neglested and forgotten.
The example you gave is barely music at all. And will not be remebered.

What you responded with is just ageist prejudice.

[Sculptor1]

I love Soft Machine, and this track is particularly good.
The only problem with the band is Robert Wyatt's singing which is quite frankly rubbish.

[Papus79]

No. You are wrong.
Some music is bad no matter when it was made, and some music is good though it was made yesterday.

Older music tends to be good, since the rubbish from the past gets neglested and forgotten.
The example you gave is barely music at all. And will not be remebered.

What you responded with is just ageist prejudice.

No, there's two baskets - what actually is mediocre for the current time and what you simply have no point of reference to make contact with, and older generations merge them as identical.

[Sculptor1]

No. You are wrong.
Some music is bad no matter when it was made, and some music is good though it was made yesterday.

Older music tends to be good, since the rubbish from the past gets neglested and forgotten.
The example you gave is barely music at all. And will not be remebered.

What you responded with is just ageist prejudice.

No, there's two baskets - what actually is mediocre for the current time and what you simply have no point of reference to make contact with, and older generations merge them as identical.

Nope. You are still wrong.
There is the waste basket and all **** music goes in it there, whether it is 200 years old, or made by talentless morons.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some music is bad no matter when it was made, and some music is good though it was made yesterday.

As a lifelong music-lover, I have had this discussion many times. I have come up wityh the only rational way I can find to see this.

• There is no "good" music and no "bad" music; there is only music.
• Music is whatever is presented as music.
• There is music that you (i.e. anyone who cares to listen) like, and music that you don't. This is the only context in which our value judgements belong: I like it or I don't like it.

I don't like dance music - Strauss or disco - but many people take huge pleasure from it. They like it, and I don't. Which of us is 'right'? Neither, of course. That's the point. Never dismiss other people's music or musical taste; it has no purpose other than rudeness and personal insult. Which is to say, it has no useful purpose at all. Music is something to be celebrated, IMO.

[Papus79]

Nope. You are still wrong.
There is the waste basket and all **** music goes in it there, whether it is 200 years old, or made by talentless morons.

Here's one. Can you name five bands, formed after 1990, that you have respect for?

[Papus79]

There is no "good" music and no "bad" music; there is only music.

The only guidance I'd add to that:

There's something that can be said for misapplied dissonance or too little of it. If an artist makes a track that's too dissonant for most people to listen to it there's a question as to what purpose they were getting at and whether it was organized or cohesive enough to at least say that it achieved its objective, ie. it's the difference between a John Cage vs. a three year old mashing keys. Something similar could be said of too little dissonance where the question is does it communicate anything, is the artist just practicing, or is it strictly a money-maker? Particularly with too little dissonance it can sound like someone just chained together a few loops they found in a library (one 2000's genre example - 'dubstep' vs. 'brostep').

[Sculptor1]

Some music is bad no matter when it was made, and some music is good though it was made yesterday.

As a lifelong music-lover, I have had this discussion many times. I have come up wityh the only rational way I can find to see this.

• There is no "good" music and no "bad" music; there is only music.
• Music is whatever is presented as music.
• There is music that you (i.e. anyone who cares to listen) like, and music that you don't. This is the only context in which our value judgements belong: I like it or I don't like it.

I don't like dance music - Strauss or disco - but many people take huge pleasure from it.

But that is "bad music". Surely you have so respect for your own opinions?

They like it, and I don't. Which of us is 'right'? Neither, of course. That's the point. Never dismiss other people's music or musical taste; it has no purpose other than rudeness and personal insult. Which is to say, it has no useful purpose at all. Music is something to be celebrated, IMO.

[Sculptor1]

Nope. You are still wrong.
There is the waste basket and all **** music goes in it there, whether it is 200 years old, or made by talentless morons.

Here's one. Can you name five bands, formed after 1990, that you have respect for?

John Grant
Amy Winehouse
West–Eastern Divan Orchestra
Portishead
Radiohead