One thing that really pisses me off is musical anti-intellectualism, or the
idea that serious music can't be fun, and fun music can't be serious, and
that one DARE not take fun music seriously. The result, as anyone can see
from looking at the history of Western music since WWII, is that fun music
becomes stupider, while music that seeks to raise questions and make you
think becomes more and more impenetrable. Not a good situation, and it's a
situation *we* as knowledgeable listeners can change by the ways *we* talk
about music.
This is in part what Alex was trying to do, and while I approach music very
differently, I applaud the effort. Unfortunately, many on the list
initially dismissed not just the result, but the effort as well. The first
few responses here to Alex's post were not, "nice try, but too much jargon
and speculation." They were more like, "shut up you stupid academic
wanker." As if no one should even try. As if it's somehow an insult or
misrepresentation of the music to look for cultural meaning below the
surface. So much for *I*DM, then. Ae of all groups are occupying a real
interesting space between noise-collage and conventional ambience, finding
evocative rhythms and melodic contours in noise, or--here's my
point--making SENSE out of NONSENSE. And we're *not* supposed to talk about
this?!
And before you say, "that's not what I meant--of course he should try, just
in a different way," my question is, why didn't you say that in the first
place?
J
________
\ / | "I don't want more choices,
H. James Harkins | I just want nicer things!"
jharkins@acpub.duke.edu |
\/ | -- Edina Monsoon
"The sky is big enough to let all the clouds pass." -- Kobai Scott Whitney