[78-L] Well EXCUUUUUUSE MEEEEE!!!

[Steven C. Barr]

see end...!
From: "Kristjan Saag" <saag at telia.com>
> Steven C. Barr wrote:
>>>> "Easy listening" is (and is supposed to be?!) a nice pleasant and 
>>>> INoffensive sound to keep one's ears "busy" while NOT requiring any 
>>>> effort from one's brain...?!/snip
>>>> One can use almost ANY contact with "the outside world" to exemplify 
>>>> this "content vs. blah" concept!
> I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Steven says:
>>>> Content is brain
>>>> Non-content is blah
>>>> And brain is supposed to be better than blah.
>>>> Children don't always agree. Neither did Dada. Neither does zen.
>>>> Eric Satie laughed at it, as does Brian Eno (ambient music).
>>>> The notion of content as superior to non-content is a very 
>>>> intellectual,
>>>> basically bourgeois and definitely Lutheran misconception. It says: we
>>>> have to work (our brains) even in our pastimes. Never let go. Never
>>>> forget our duties.
>>>> Don't just play around, kid!
>>>> (Sigh.)
>>>>
>>>>
> Steven replied:
>
> > If that were actually true, we would have NO reason to expend the effort
> > and money to find and purchase 78's...?! All we would want/need for our
> > music would be a nice content-free "easy listening" CD or two (or the
> > MP3 equivalents?!). I would guess that virtually all of us track down
> > and purchase 78's simply because almost all of their musical "content"
> > is NOT available otherwise?!
> --
> I'm not saying that music with "content" should be replaced by music
> without "content".  It's the normative approach that's troublesome: the
> notion that one type of music is superior to the other. In this case:
> that good music HAS to activate our intellect and/or emotions - or it
> isn't good music.
> I happen to eat both sausages and burgers, pasta and pizza, ice cream
> and pudding. And, I assure you, it's perfectly possible to enjoy both
> the intellectual/ emotional way of listening and the intellectually
> passive/ meditative. What usually prevents us from the latter is our
> cultural codes: effort, responsibility, presence, seriousness...which
> also define quality. And help to define our tastes.
> Tastes change, in society as within ourselves. We live in a time when
> the "lazy" approach, the slacker's attitude towards art and labour has
> become more dominant. It helps to produce a lot of crap, but so has
> periods of serious  persistence. The good thing with the present
> easiness is that it has freed creativity that used to be bound within
> certain aesthetic hierarchies. The curious young musician today has
> skipped those hierarchies and looks everywhere to find inspiration,
> samples Arthur Lyman one day, Billie Holiday the next. Mantovani isn't
> excluded, neither is Stravinsky or Patti Page's Doggy.
> These kids like to play - and I hope they stay kids that way.
> I wish we could too, more than we are. The first step would be to stop
> vomiting over the playfulness in others, just because the games they
> play don't fit our taste.
> Kristjan
>
Note that I DIDN'T say that one sort of music is intrinsically "better"
than another (Mr. Okin often makes that statement...!). Music is
inherently a matter of "taste"...and the "rules"of formal debate
specifically DISallow "taste" as a debatable concept...! One (if one
is serious about one's "likes and dislikes"...?!) cannot justify say
that "this music" is somehow inherently superior to "that music"...!

Like food and drink, music is an area where many (sadly, NOT all!)
of us have our personal preferences...! Thus, we can only (justifiably)
say, "I LIKE this much more than that"...and NOT "this is superior
to that!" There are a very few exceptions...since we all (or most of
us) experience music in its "western" (North America/Europe) forms,
we can recognize music which is performed "out of tune" (by these
standards!) or otherwise does not follow the "rules" we know!

We can recognize when a (rock) band is using a mis-tuned guitar
(or other instrument?!) and as a result "don't like" the sound; however,
in some newer forms/styles of "jazz," that is done intentionally...?!

Steven C. Barr