[Glice]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Classical music is where the real art is and maybe some jazz.

I would tend to agree - 'classical music' [itself a misnomer] tends towards the same ends as poetry and visual art [etc] insofar as it's far less concerned towards notions of audience etc. I'd be surprised if rock, outside Fushitsusha, ever caught up with Schoenberg, let alone Ligeti/ Xenakis/ Radelescu [etc].

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

When something becomes an 'emotional need' doesn't that show total desperation that your music be original? Not only are sitting down trying to be original, but you're willing it with all your soul to validate your efforts, surely?

sssstttttuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddeeeennnnttt!!!!

[Savage Clone]

Well, modern "classical" is definitely where a lot of "art" (or ahht, if you prefer) resides, but I wouldn't say it's exclusive to classical or jazz.
Certainly orchestras and conductors playing music that is hundreds of years old, performing "interpretations" that are akin to going into a massive piece of literature and adding tiny underlines or italics here and there are just as guilty of "regression" as any perennial garage revivalist. I would argue they are possibly more regressive, just because they are operating under some kind of high-brow delusion. The garage revivalist rarely harbors notions of originality or self-importance; they're just having a good time and using Vox instuments to do it.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Well, modern "classical" is definitely where a lot of "art" (or ahht, if you prefer) resides, but I wouldn't say it's exclusive to classical or jazz.
Certainly orchestras and conductors playing music that is hundreds of years old, performing "interpretations" that are akin to going into a massive piece of literature and adding tiny underlines or italics here and there are just as guilty of "regression" as any perennial garage revivalist. I would argue they are possibly more regressive, just because they are operating under some kind of high-brow delusion. The garage revivalist rarely harbors notions of originality or self-importance; they're just having a good time and using Vox instuments to do it.

Fair points all... But you're talking about 'classical' [still a misnomer] in the sense of the rarified Vivaldi bollocks. Don't get me wrong, I'm of the impression that there's nearly nothing done by Mozart, Bach & Beethoven (I choose my names carefully) that hasn't been regurgitated ad infinitum by the rock hordes - for myself, I hold the notion of 'art music' in very high regard, I would seriously contend any argument that sought to put any rock above the achievements of your Cages, Varéses or Xenakises (3 names at random).

[Savage Clone]

Apples and oranges.
I love Pentagram and Crumb equally, and for different reasons.
"better" only really applies to things used for the same purpose. Music is not always "of the head" for me. Lots of times it's gut or balls.

[Savage Clone]

(and yes, the term "classical" being used to cover 20th Century (an beyond) "art" composers really is dumb and confuses a lot of good musical discussions.)

[Glice]

Gut or balls is the most important for the individual, unless the individual happens to be an academic.

When we're talking about 'avant' or progressive, we're talking intellect. Ultimately, I'm happier with Happy Hardcore than I am Stimmung or somesuch. Having said that, I would happily contend that there was a cultural moment in which HHC was a pseudo-avant form.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Apples and oranges.
I love Pentagram ...

It often raises a smile when Yanks say 'apples and oranges' because I have no idea what they mean, except insofar as I understand they mean 'horses for courses'.

I was listening to a Peel show from '69 today in which 'Pentagram' were referred to as 'The Pentagram'. HTID.

[Savage Clone]

I do think there was a SHORT (I stress that it was very short) "golden age" of continental European and South American progressive rock that was applying the 20th Century art school shit to the rock idiom very very well. The rate of return to the amount of LPs is slim, but the good ones are incredibly good.

Private press electronic LPs by nameless shut-ins in the late 60s to late 70s also work out well on occasion, as do certain soundtracks from that era (Andromeda Strain - WHOA)

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by Glice

It often raises a smile when Yanks say 'apples and oranges' because I have no idea what they mean, except insofar as I understand they mean 'horses for courses'.

They are both tasty fruits that one can enjoy equally, while tasting totally different, having different textures, one you peel and one you don't, etc..

I have never in my life heard the term "horses for courses," so I thank you for that little tidbit.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Glice

When we're talking about 'avant' or progressive, we're talking intellect.

only if you're talking about progression within the art form rather than how an art form can affect progress of the world in general, 20th century avant garde composition barely had any impact on the shaping and progression of the 20th century and affected very few lives in comparison to rock n roll.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Glice

I hold the notion of 'art music' in very high regard

advertising jingles aside, who decides what is and isn't art music?

[Glice]

Yeah, agreed.

I mean, you're familiar with the Seymour Wright fallout of free improv - there was an aesthetic moment in which Derek Bailey is (rightly) exalted to the point of avant- imprimatuer [sp?], but the aegesis of continuing that is a convoluted and plainly wrong narrative. I have no problems with Prévost/ Rowe/ Bailey [etc] in their selves, but the fallout has produced little but shite.

The Rolling Stones - or even Oasis - will always be more influential than a... Harry Pussy or somesuch, let alone Yatsuano Tone or Cage.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

advertising jingles aside, who decides what is and isn't art music?

Me. Ergo, fuck off.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by acousticrock87

Occasionally that natural outlet is innovative and new--especially in creative people. But they don't have to plan it, or even get it wrong once. It's natural.

I don't buy this idea of inborn creativity ("creative people" - argh! that phrase!), the idea of creativity as a "gift" that some have and some don't makes a mockery of everyone who has worked relentlessly for their art. I can barely play music at all because I havn't worked at it enough. I can draw and paint well because I have. It's as simple as that. It's hardly natural, art in all it's capacity to inspire and blah blah blah comes from working your ass off, actually. It's not natural, and it DEFINATELY doesn't exempt you from mistakes.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

affected very few lives in comparison to rock n roll.

Has it? Who are these people, and how have they been affected apart from getting fucked on drugs, getting a broken rib or two, a few ringing ears, and being simply entertained?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

I don't buy this idea of inborn creativity ("creative people" - argh! that phrase!), the idea of creativity as a "gift" that some have and some don't makes a mockery of everyone who has worked relentlessly for their art. I can barely play music at all because I havn't worked at it enough. I can draw and paint well because I have. It's as simple as that. It's hardly natural, art in all it's capacity to inspire and blah blah blah comes from working your ass off, actually. It's not natural, and it DEFINATELY doesn't exempt you from mistakes.

that's nonsense. the logical conclusion to what you're saying is that if anyone puts their mind to something they can become incredible at what they do if they work hard enough, which is tantamount to saying that all people are exactly alike. sadly it is not the case that every person has unlimited potential for anything, the reason you're better at drawing and painting than you are at playing music isn't just that you've spent more time doing them, but also that you are more inclined to do draw and paint and have a greater natural capacity for those things than you do for playing music. some people are naturally more talented at certain things than others and will always be better at them no matter how hard other people try. however, having a natural talent for something is not the same thing has having the ambition and dedication to cultivate that talent to achieve greatness and/or massive recognition.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Has it? Who are these people, and how have they been affected apart from getting fucked on drugs, getting a broken rib or two, a few ringing ears, and being simply entertained?

i can't believe someone on a music board is ignorant of the impact that rock n roll had on society. there are plenty of books on the subject, i would advise you to go to the library and read one.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Glice

The Rolling Stones - or even Oasis - will always be more influential than a... Harry Pussy or somesuch, let alone Yatsuano Tone or Cage.

True, although Harry Pussy mean far more in my life than the stones or oasis.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Has it? Who are these people, and how have they been affected apart from getting fucked on drugs, getting a broken rib or two, a few ringing ears, and being simply entertained?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_an...ultural_impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._rock_and_roll