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

[Sculptor1]

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

AI music and AI art capture the formulas and clichés of those arts, but skip the artistic and creative aspects, not unlike many commercial pop art enterprises. AI seems to be the most recent attempt to eliminate musicianship. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical dystopia, Between Time and Timbuktu, where society demands that everyone be equal, so everyone with talent must be handicapped to the point where they are normal.

Success seems based on clicks these days, and sadly most people do not seem to notice the differences when the human element is taken out - or do not care. But this is the main reason I was so horrified with the rave scene pumping out rhythms to quick for any human drummer, and tunes no one had to bother to learn to play.
Creativeness still happens but musicians have to earn a living and the platforms are crushing them.

I have a sense that some audiences, figuratively speaking, become tired of lookup up, and would rather look across. Reality TV might be the most extreme example of this. This comes in phases (I hope).

I do not get this bit

[LuckyR]

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

AI music and AI art capture the formulas and clichés of those arts, but skip the artistic and creative aspects, not unlike many commercial pop art enterprises. AI seems to be the most recent attempt to eliminate musicianship. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical dystopia, Between Time and Timbuktu, where society demands that everyone be equal, so everyone with talent must be handicapped to the point where they are normal.

Success seems based on clicks these days, and sadly most people do not seem to notice the differences when the human element is taken out - or do not care. But this is the main reason I was so horrified with the rave scene pumping out rhythms to quick for any human drummer, and tunes no one had to bother to learn to play.
Creativeness still happens but musicians have to earn a living and the platforms are crushing them.

I have a sense that some audiences, figuratively speaking, become tired of lookup up, and would rather look across. Reality TV might be the most extreme example of this. This comes in phases (I hope).

I do not get this bit

You're right currently success equals clicks. However the more important distinction is between success and excellence, essentially quantity vs quality.

[Sy Borg]

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

AI music and AI art capture the formulas and clichés of those arts, but skip the artistic and creative aspects, not unlike many commercial pop art enterprises. AI seems to be the most recent attempt to eliminate musicianship. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical dystopia, Between Time and Timbuktu, where society demands that everyone be equal, so everyone with talent must be handicapped to the point where they are normal.

Success seems based on clicks these days, and sadly most people do not seem to notice the differences when the human element is taken out - or do not care. But this is the main reason I was so horrified with the rave scene pumping out rhythms to quick for any human drummer, and tunes no one had to bother to learn to play.
Creativeness still happens but musicians have to earn a living and the platforms are crushing them.

I was part of the the Death to Disco - Keep Music Live crew. We lost. Man, we lost soooo badly :lol: After decades of horror at seeing the artificialisation of music, now all can do is laugh. Now we have a growing army of rigid-minded people, programmed by mainstream and social media, driven by the relentless bet of machines. It's like a metaphor for the production line.

I have a sense that some audiences, figuratively speaking, become tired of lookup up, and would rather look across. Reality TV might be the most extreme example of this. This comes in phases (I hope).

I do not get this bit

Simply, prog musicians were stars in wild costumes with extravagant stage shows under lights that cost a lot of money and a significant chunk of the youth at the time decided they'd rather see lousy musicians in a small pub for free and gob at them. They were rather be entertained by peers than idols.

Part of the problem is the big stage dynamic (which is not just a prog issue), where a significant portion of people are too far away from the stage to notice any subtleties. Also, the crowd mentality created a ritualised and slavish audience dynamic, with plebs being allowed a brief glimpse of the gods. Like many things in our societies (eg. cities, buildings), concerts became too big - televised spectacles while the crowd parties and only somewhat notices the actual music.

[Sculptor1]

Simply, prog musicians were stars in wild costumes with extravagant stage shows under lights that cost a lot of money and a significant chunk of the youth at the time decided they'd rather see lousy musicians in a small pub for free and gob at them. They were rather be entertained by peers than idols.

That is pretty much the utter ******** peddled by the music press. Give me Yes, and Genesis over the Sex Pistols anyday.
Punk was motly just another marketing ploy, and the best of it - that which survived were the best songwriters and players, like The Stranglers.

Part of the problem is the big stage dynamic (which is not just a prog issue), where a significant portion of people are too far away from the stage to notice any subtleties. Also, the crowd mentality created a ritualised and slavish audience dynamic, with plebs being allowed a brief glimpse of the gods. Like many things in our societies (eg. cities, buildings), concerts became too big - televised spectacles while the crowd parties and only somewhat notices the actual music.

Never a problem. What about Queen - they had the biggest shows but Punk never dented them for a moment. Bowie went from strength to strength with massive remote shows. Jean Michel Jarre... the list is endless. Where was punk when it came to LiveAid - nowhere.
The music press might have managed to mobilise Punk for about five years to dent Prog. But despite being less obvious through the lens of the singles chart all the best Prog bands thrived throughout the 20thC, long after punk died.

[Belindi]

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

AI music and AI art capture the formulas and clichés of those arts, but skip the artistic and creative aspects, not unlike many commercial pop art enterprises. AI seems to be the most recent attempt to eliminate musicianship. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical dystopia, Between Time and Timbuktu, where society demands that everyone be equal, so everyone with talent must be handicapped to the point where they are normal.

Success seems based on clicks these days, and sadly most people do not seem to notice the differences when the human element is taken out - or do not care. But this is the main reason I was so horrified with the rave scene pumping out rhythms to quick for any human drummer, and tunes no one had to bother to learn to play.
Creativeness still happens but musicians have to earn a living and the platforms are crushing them.

I have a sense that some audiences, figuratively speaking, become tired of lookup up, and would rather look across. Reality TV might be the most extreme example of this. This comes in phases (I hope).

I do not get this bit

NB I did not write the quotation that begins "The other phase in my lifetime-----" it was from Sy Borg.

Is Sy Borg claiming that , following on her discussion of the important difference between synthetic sounds music on the one hand and AI music on the other, the popular consciousness is ---what? That is an important topic because it may indicate whether a society is in decline as to morale and plain humanity of purpose.

I do not get that last bit either. Maybe escapism? I guess the reason is the topic is so complex and these forums are an unusual medium for dealing with a large topic, although Sy Borg and sculptor make worthy efforts to do so.

[Sy Borg]

Simply, prog musicians were stars in wild costumes with extravagant stage shows under lights that cost a lot of money and a significant chunk of the youth at the time decided they'd rather see lousy musicians in a small pub for free and gob at them. They were rather be entertained by peers than idols.

Punk was motly just another marketing ploy, and the best of it - that which survived were the best songwriters and players, like The Stranglers.

That is pretty much the utter ******** peddled by the music press. Give me Yes, and Genesis over the Sex Pistols anyday.

Yes, I detested Rolling Stone journalists, and still find them to be overly political, self-righteous types who specialise in being experts after the fact.

In the 70s, my first band had a couple of members who were into the Pistols, so I had to play Anarchy in the UK and Bodies. I could not understand the fuss. It was just fast, sloppy rock with zero imagination or dynamics, no beauty of subtlety. Really boring stuff, aside from the amusing lyrics. I didn't know about punk, so I played the songs like classic rock. No one complained. So why do Rollin Stones journos always bleat on about "authenticity"? Seemingly to justify their own jobs.

Some years later, I auditioned for a new wave band. Again, I approached the songs as if they were classic rock and the band was ecstatic and hired me on the spot. It needs to be said that I was not, and am not, a good drummer. Very ordinary. However, even in that bottom-feeding shamateur situation, skill made a difference - and it mattered more than so-called authenticity (the auditioners must have been very green!). If you are influenced by Bonham you can play any punk or new wave band, and the other players will love it. All you have to do is reign in the fills.

The standards of modernism may not always apply, but it's the basis on which all other assessments should be built.

// end minor rant

As you suggest, to a fair degree of punk's success comes down to to McLaren's special blend of having a tin ear along with a gift for marketing.

I loved, and love, prog. Prog and fusion were my musical foods in my late teens. I was a terrible musical snob. I could not see the point in listening to bands with lesser musicians. Like most, I've mellowed much with age, and broadened my tastes. However, my first musical loves remain prog and fusion.

Part of the problem is the big stage dynamic (which is not just a prog issue), where a significant portion of people are too far away from the stage to notice any subtleties. Also, the crowd mentality created a ritualised and slavish audience dynamic, with plebs being allowed a brief glimpse of the gods. Like many things in our societies (eg. cities, buildings), concerts became too big - televised spectacles while the crowd parties and only somewhat notices the actual music.

Never a problem. What about Queen - they had the biggest shows but Punk never dented them for a moment. Bowie went from strength to strength with massive remote shows. Jean Michel Jarre... the list is endless. Where was punk when it came to LiveAid - nowhere.
The music press might have managed to mobilise Punk for about five years to dent Prog. But despite being less obvious through the lens of the singles chart all the best Prog bands thrived throughout the 20thC, long after punk died.

Queen were probably the ultimate stadium band but I'd still rather see them playing at a bar than from the back of a stadium.

[Sculptor1]

Simply, prog musicians were stars in wild costumes with extravagant stage shows under lights that cost a lot of money and a significant chunk of the youth at the time decided they'd rather see lousy musicians in a small pub for free and gob at them. They were rather be entertained by peers than idols.

Punk was motly just another marketing ploy, and the best of it - that which survived were the best songwriters and players, like The Stranglers.

That is pretty much the utter ******** peddled by the music press. Give me Yes, and Genesis over the Sex Pistols anyday.

Yes, I detested Rolling Stone journalists, and still find them to be overly political, self-righteous types who specialise in being experts after the fact.

In the 70s, my first band had a couple of members who were into the Pistols, so I had to play Anarchy in the UK and Bodies. I could not understand the fuss. It was just fast, sloppy rock with zero imagination or dynamics, no beauty of subtlety. Really boring stuff, aside from the amusing lyrics. I didn't know about punk, so I played the songs like classic rock. No one complained. So why do Rollin Stones journos always bleat on about "authenticity"? Seemingly to justify their own jobs.

Some years later, I auditioned for a new wave band. Again, I approached the songs as if they were classic rock and the band was ecstatic and hired me on the spot. It needs to be said that I was not, and am not, a good drummer. Very ordinary. However, even in that bottom-feeding shamateur situation, skill made a difference - and it mattered more than so-called authenticity (the auditioners must have been very green!). If you are influenced by Bonham you can play any punk or new wave band, and the other players will love it. All you have to do is reign in the fills.

The standards of modernism may not always apply, but it's the basis on which all other assessments should be built.

// end minor rant

As you suggest, to a fair degree of punk's success comes down to to McLaren's special blend of having a tin ear along with a gift for marketing.

I loved, and love, prog. Prog and fusion were my musical foods in my late teens. I was a terrible musical snob. I could not see the point in listening to bands with lesser musicians. Like most, I've mellowed much with age, and broadened my tastes. However, my first musical loves remain prog and fusion.

Part of the problem is the big stage dynamic (which is not just a prog issue), where a significant portion of people are too far away from the stage to notice any subtleties. Also, the crowd mentality created a ritualised and slavish audience dynamic, with plebs being allowed a brief glimpse of the gods. Like many things in our societies (eg. cities, buildings), concerts became too big - televised spectacles while the crowd parties and only somewhat notices the actual music.

Never a problem. What about Queen - they had the biggest shows but Punk never dented them for a moment. Bowie went from strength to strength with massive remote shows. Jean Michel Jarre... the list is endless. Where was punk when it came to LiveAid - nowhere.
The music press might have managed to mobilise Punk for about five years to dent Prog. But despite being less obvious through the lens of the singles chart all the best Prog bands thrived throughout the 20thC, long after punk died.

Queen were probably the ultimate stadium band but I'd still rather see them playing at a bar than from the back of a stadium.

Prog has stood the test of time.
Examples of the fnest examples; The Yes Album, Tarkus or Meddle. I can be listening to Beethoven on random play and followed with a track from an album like these and no feel that something is missing.

I'm a mediocre drummer too, btw.

[Belindi]

May I say that Sculptor and Sy Borg agree as to skill's being a permanent criterion for qualifying a work of art?

I am trying to follow the discussion of quality in popular music and it is very interesting. However it is esoteric and I would like Sculpture and Sy Borg to relate their thesis to the wider culture. Is the commercialisation of art a sign of the commercialisation of hearts and minds, or is the example from music only an analogy? I don't think it's only an analogy therefore the discussion needs to be broadened into sociology

You two do seem to me to be aligning yourselves with 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and reviving the thesis which is the theme that story i.e. the nature of quality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Give me Yes, and Genesis over the Sex Pistols anyday.
Punk was mostly just another marketing ploy, and the best of it - that which survived were the best songwriters and players, like The Stranglers.

Yes, loads of bands who weren't punks emerged successfully by riding the punk wave. Not just the Stranglers, but Blondie, Elvis Costello and others that have already been mentioned. The Clash were the only exception, IMO — a 'proper' punk band whose music still stands up to scrutiny. I still play them, anyway.

I still listen to a lot of progressive rock too, including Yes and Genesis, Gentle Giant, King Crimson and Van der Graaf Generator. Loads of others too...

[Sculptor1]

Give me Yes, and Genesis over the Sex Pistols anyday.
Punk was mostly just another marketing ploy, and the best of it - that which survived were the best songwriters and players, like The Stranglers.

Yes, loads of bands who weren't punks emerged successfully by riding the punk wave. Not just the Stranglers, but Blondie, Elvis Costello and others that have already been mentioned. The Clash were the only exception, IMO — a 'proper' punk band whose music still stands up to scrutiny. I still play them, anyway.

I still listen to a lot of progressive rock too, including Yes and Genesis, Gentle Giant, King Crimson and Van der Graaf Generator. Loads of others too...

Toad is worth a listen.
There was a great flowering in 1970-1 , of heavy rock which fed into Prog. Iron Claw is pretty good, though raw. There is still much to discover.

[Sy Borg]

May I say that Sculptor and Sy Borg agree as to skill's being a permanent criterion for qualifying a work of art?

I am trying to follow the discussion of quality in popular music and it is very interesting. However it is esoteric and I would like Sculpture and Sy Borg to relate their thesis to the wider culture. Is the commercialisation of art a sign of the commercialisation of hearts and minds, or is the example from music only an analogy? I don't think it's only an analogy therefore the discussion needs to be broadened into sociology

You two do seem to me to be aligning yourselves with 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and reviving the thesis which is the theme that story i.e. the nature of quality.

When I was working I noticed at pattern wherever I worked. That is, all the good and fun aspects of the job would gradually be stripped way, budget by budget, as the bean counters ever refined the art of rationalising the workplace to the bone. This has happened in the arts too. When a little chaos is allowed in you get creativity and variation. When systems are locked down tightly by ruthless efficiency drives, everything must conform to what are deemed the most efficient formulas.

Frank Zappa explains the dynamic as it applied to the music business:

[Belindi]

May I say that Sculptor and Sy Borg agree as to skill's being a permanent criterion for qualifying a work of art?

I am trying to follow the discussion of quality in popular music and it is very interesting. However it is esoteric and I would like Sculpture and Sy Borg to relate their thesis to the wider culture. Is the commercialisation of art a sign of the commercialisation of hearts and minds, or is the example from music only an analogy? I don't think it's only an analogy therefore the discussion needs to be broadened into sociology

You two do seem to me to be aligning yourselves with 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and reviving the thesis which is the theme that story i.e. the nature of quality.

Does your observation apply to politics?

I
When I was working I noticed at pattern wherever I worked. That is, all the good and fun aspects of the job would gradually be stripped way, budget by budget, as the bean counters ever refined the art of rationalising the workplace to the bone. This has happened in the arts too. When a little chaos is allowed in you get creativity and variation. When systems are locked down tightly by ruthless efficiency drives, everything must conform to what are deemed the most efficient formulas.

Frank Zappa explains the dynamic as it applied to the music business:

I can think of workplaces where efficiency and even military discipline are better than creativity, for instance the fighting services : a hospital ward . Then ,again, I can imagine situations when creativity benefits the causes of victory , and sick patients.

BTW I regard your artistry, and that of Sculptor, as work whether or not you get paid money for doing it. I dislike the word and concept 'hobby' so much I hesitated to type it in full.

[Sy Borg]

May I say that Sculptor and Sy Borg agree as to skill's being a permanent criterion for qualifying a work of art?

I am trying to follow the discussion of quality in popular music and it is very interesting. However it is esoteric and I would like Sculpture and Sy Borg to relate their thesis to the wider culture. Is the commercialisation of art a sign of the commercialisation of hearts and minds, or is the example from music only an analogy? I don't think it's only an analogy therefore the discussion needs to be broadened into sociology

You two do seem to me to be aligning yourselves with 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and reviving the thesis which is the theme that story i.e. the nature of quality.

Does your observation apply to politics?

I
When I was working I noticed at pattern wherever I worked. That is, all the good and fun aspects of the job would gradually be stripped way, budget by budget, as the bean counters ever refined the art of rationalising the workplace to the bone. This has happened in the arts too. When a little chaos is allowed in you get creativity and variation. When systems are locked down tightly by ruthless efficiency drives, everything must conform to what are deemed the most efficient formulas.

Frank Zappa explains the dynamic as it applied to the music business:

I can think of workplaces where efficiency and even military discipline are better than creativity, for instance the fighting services : a hospital ward . Then ,again, I can imagine situations when creativity benefits the causes of victory , and sick patients.

BTW I regard your artistry, and that of Sculptor, as work whether or not you get paid money for doing it. I dislike the word and concept 'hobby' so much I hesitated to type it in full.

No need to be nice about our hobbies, Belinda :) Speaking for myself, I'm old and arthritic enough to be comfortable with my mediocrity. Life is often better when one doesn't poke one's head over the parapet.

The issue of rationalisation ends up as a battle of rival goods - coordination vs freedom. Imagine if the cells of our bodies decided to get creative? Then again, maybe we don't need to imagine, just visit an oncology ward.

Yet even at the cellular level there are tiny amounts of freedom because our body's control of each cell is not absolute. The small measure of chaos within the system allows "creativity" to happen on a trial & error basis. It's only a small amount of "freedom", but it's more than in, say, metals and rocks. Some mutations are beneficial, some are harmful and most are probably neutral. Like most art.

[Belindi]

Okay if you say so you are mediocre by some standard or other, I wouldn't know. But I am not being polite or nicey-nice. 'H--by" means nothing besides its implication that your honest endeavour is valued to the degree of how much somebody pays you for doing it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Toad is worth a listen.
There was a great flowering in 1970-1 , of heavy rock which fed into Prog. Iron Claw is pretty good, though raw. There is still much to discover.

I thought "Toad" was the Cream track with the Ginger Baker drum solo. I'll check them out when I get the chance... Thanks for the tip.