Living Inside said:
holy shit, this thread is enough to kill braincells.
Yeah, it is starting to sound like dry technical jargon, isn't it? It's nice, though. I haven't had a discussion requiring the use of actual brain cells in such a long time...
Demiurge said:
Atonal composition is synonymous with no composition. Modern art could be created by children with fingerpaint, atonal "music" could be "composed" by deaf retards. It is the reduction of value to the recombinant. Into the waste basket with such gimmickry.
A child with fingerpaint is simply doodling. Actual modern artists are expressing intense emotion through wild, inconsistent, and incoherent jabs at canvas. They are expressing the emotion in its rawest form. It just is. I've created some of my own. It's very different from still life or Impressionism. In fact, I swear Monet would have a heart attack if he saw it, but the process is very different. You create the art in a fit. It's natural. There are no "mistakes," and anny effort to fix them ruins the natural flow of the artwork. That flow can be seen. It may look jarring, childish, and inconceivably idiotic, but modern art IS art. The same is applied to serialism. It's music performed differently, just to explore. It's music at a purely cerebral level, but a lot of it can be enjoyed without tearing one's hair out. It's insulting to simply deem it as pretentious bullshit. You don't know the composer's mind, or why he chose to use 12-tone ideas rather than diatonic thirds or octaves or the scale hierarchy.
Gustav Mahler would create pieces with lively melodies, but their inspiration would be traumatic events. In his mind, happy-sounding music equated to feelings of death. Without knowing that, 99% of listeners would be awestruck by his gift for soaring melody, thinking him a Romantic at heart, and a generally cheerful person.
You're right. My personal opinion is meaningless. But in music, factual analysis is equally meaningless. Collective opinion is what defines the worth of something. You'll have a field day with this, but look at history. Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill will probably be considered a classic in the eyes of the next generation, much like Zeppelin IV is to people today. Whether individuals like ZOSO is quite irrelevant. However, legions of worldwide fans of the album are synonymous in praising it, as are fans of JLP. Regardless of how many musical rules the two albums break, or how horribly produced or how aesthetically idiotic the albums may be, they obviously did something to garner pleasure in the minds and hearts of listeners all over. Therefore, they are classic. And the only way you can dislike it is if you...just dislike it. Regardless of the flaws in musicianship or assembly, the albums are examples of music that made a difference. Good music.
I can listen to "Ironic" and not give damn about the verse/chorus structure or the simplistic chords in the chorus. It's a good song. Bottom line. All objective things are not concrete. But all abstract things are not objective, either. Music happens to be one.
As much as you pick apart TSOP for its circular structure and wankery, it is still a good album, made by good musicians. And it will most definitely influence more people than Piece Of Time. Does that mean its better? No. But it makes it difficult to prove that it's bad. In the end, if the circular structure bothers no one, then it must not be a negative aspect. Does the album push boundaries? I maintain that it does. And proving the ways that it doesn't is no way to prove that the album hasn't pushed boundaries anyway. "It has circular structure. This limits it from being able to advance music." I think not.
As unusual as it might seem, the worth of music is directly influenced by the majority's opinion. That opinion might not sway that of the individual(a good thing; conforming to the masses is just not "metal"), but it does define what is good and what is not.
Evanesence's album is trash, in my opinion. However, the hordes like it. And if, somehow, it survives the test of time(which it won't, I guarantee, but nonetheless), it will be considered a good album. And if that happens, I can live with that. However, that fact that I don't like it determines whether I listen to it or not. There have been millions of musicians in the past 100 years. Only a fraction of those musicians have managed to create music that is geniunely 'good,' because it stood the test of time and was enjoyed by many as well.
See?
