Best Ever Albums

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:59:32 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 12/02/2017 18:59

Tap wrote:

experimental music doesn't mean experiments happened, all it means is that the listener gave up on actually categorizing it. lots of music in the past was experimental but people didn't give up and they actually categorized it.

so experimental music does pose particular challenges because part of what you need to do is make it not experimental music anymore.

Great point.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anonymous — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:34:12 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/02/2017 16:34

Fischman wrote:

What is the best instrumentation for 4:33? Is it solo piano or full orchestra? How 'bout string quartet? Maybe it's that scorching rendition by a red hot trumpeter. I played it on my kazoo and got no applause at all 🫢

And what if a conductor slows the tempo and it ends up taking 4:38? Is he a dreadful hack who should never be allowed on the podium or is he a great visionary bringing a radical new interpretation to be praised?

🤣 �'�

That's funny- I posted about not over-thinking before I read this!

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anonymous — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:32:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/02/2017 16:32

sethmadsen wrote:

Absolutely agree and more or less what I was saying.

😄

Quote:

Also I heard that 4:33 was supposed to be performed outside, so actually it wasn't complete silence, but has since taken on the various forms of it's performance interpretation. It's music you actually turn the pages to, etc.

Yeah I read that too: you hear what's outside or in the room at the time. I like it: it seems quite a punk rock thing to do (still, I'm not sure if I would part with my cash for this experience) I think I was just raising those examples as I think there is a danger of over--thinking responses to unconventional forms of expression ('What is the purpose of this? Etc), which could be a barrier to just experiencing it and being moved in some way.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Fischman — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:19:49 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 12/02/2017 16:19

What is the best instrumentation for 4:33? Is it solo piano or full orchestra? How 'bout string quartet? Maybe it's that scorching rendition by a red hot trumpeter. I played it on my kazoo and got no applause at all 🫢

And what if a conductor slows the tempo and it ends up taking 4:38? Is he a dreadful hack who should never be allowed on the podium or is he a great visionary bringing a radical new interpretation to be praised?

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Tap — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:10:30 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 12/02/2017 14:10

experimental music doesn't mean experiments happened, all it means is that the listener gave up on actually categorizing it. lots of music in the past was experimental but people didn't give up and they actually categorized it.

so experimental music does pose particular challenges because part of what you need to do is make it not experimental music anymore.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 2 Dec 2017 00:53:53 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 12/02/2017 05:53

Absolutely agree and more or less what I was saying.

Also I heard that 4:33 was supposed to be performed outside, so actually it wasn't complete silence, but has since taken on the various forms of it's performance interpretation. It's music you actually turn the pages to, etc.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anonymous — Fri, 1 Dec 2017 06:11:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/01/2017 11:11

sethmadsen wrote:

Sometimes experimental music is frustrating to listen to because it purposely breaks all concepts of the norm. Good experimental music does this without farting in your face or shitting in your hands.

Hear where your coming from as I don't normally listen to things that are unconventional for their own sake. However, I think that rule-breaking can be intrinsically pleasurable, without having an obvious higher aesthetic or artistic purpose. And I think sometimes this is at its best when it comes in pretty unpalatable forms.

For example,I think Half Japanese are great fun. This is just because they break rules and make a lot of noise, which is intrinsically funny and liberating from conventional values and forms. I would say the music is neither aesthetically pleasing or particularly intellectually stimulating (I really don't want to call this sort of thing satirical of other bands, as this seems like robbing it of the value that it has in itself).

Similar thing with Andy Kaufman. I think the Jokes aren't meant to be funny - I find it's more about the pleasure of his rule breaking that is intrinsically fun and liberating to see. (I just saw the Jim and Andy documentary on Netflix: really good, more interesting than the film Man on the Moon even). He once read the Great Gatsby from cover to cover at a gig, which is kind of unbearable and brilliant at the same time to me.

Similar thing with that silent piece of music by John Cage.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

RoundTheBend — Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:11:16 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 12/01/2017 05:11

Tilly wrote:

SleepDealer wrote:

Fischman wrote:

Same way I judge anything else. Does it sound good, or at least interesting (either emotionally or intellectually)? Is it engaging?

I don't give extra credit just because something has never been done before. Often, there's a reason it hasn't been done before: it sounds like crap.

Now I do give extra credit when something sounds new and fresh and is stimulating. That's a real accomplishment.

Yep. It's all music.

my thoughts too pretty much.

I suppose I'm in this camp too. All art (imo) should somehow reflect humanity - and when it reflects a greater amount of humanity, it typically is more powerful, and so shitting on a kazoo, well most people don't do that. I suppose maybe social norms play a role here. It's kinda like a really good person could never shower or wipe their ass and then like to show off their farts in your face and burp in your face and just all manner of disgusting things because they thought it was unique... I don't care who you are, it'll frustrate you, even if that person really is a good person just as worthy of your love as the next.

Sometimes experimental music is frustrating to listen to because it purposely breaks all concepts of the norm. Good experimental music does this without farting in your face or shitting in your hands.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

RoundTheBend — Fri, 1 Dec 2017 00:07:03 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 12/01/2017 05:07

Tap wrote:

lol I actually did buy that album, it came out on cassauna. and they fucking ruined it! there's like this delay effect on it that forces an unchanging meter on the music and kills the free-flow of the music that the birds are making.

haha - awesome (that you bought it)... less awesome they produced it to death.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Repo — Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:09:23 GMT

Author: Repo

Posted: 11/30/2017 22:09

SleepDealer wrote:

Fischman wrote:

Yep. It's all music.

my thoughts too pretty much.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anti — Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:56:04 GMT

Author: Anti

Posted: 11/30/2017 21:56

When I think about "experimental" music, I kind of think of it like a science experiment. The purpose of a science experiment is to push the boundaries of knowledge, uncover new things that can be applied to what we already know (and there's also experiments that only have the purpose of validating theories, which is absolutely important but we can ignore for this thread). Putting this into the framework of experimental music, artists are trying new sounds, pushing the boundaries of music, and listeners can either enjoy the music for what it is and/or take an interesting bit of the music and apply it to their own, further pushing the boundaries of music.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

SleepDealer — Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:00:28 GMT

Author: SleepDealer

Posted: 11/29/2017 21:00

Fischman wrote:

Yep. It's all music.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

AfterHours — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:48:21 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/29/2017 03:48

On the point of defining experimental, it's interesting and can be a bit subjective. Also, it is relative to the time of release. What was experimental 10, 20+ years ago isn't necessarily experimental today. Tons of the albums and Classical works I list from 7.3/7.8 on up were a new view of music/experimental upon release but many wouldn't be called experimental today. Beethoven alone did this several times over, in practically every genre/sub-genre he touched (and muliple times in solo piano, string quartet and symphonic forms) -- what most artists don't even do once in a career.

With experimental music in general, in many cases such works were touchstones with many followers who derived upon them and they gradually became more commonplace (though not often surpassing the sense of conviction/insight of the originals, particularly the most astonishing examples).

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Tha1ChiefRocka — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:30:54 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 11/29/2017 03:30

One of the telling things that has popped up here is the breadth of artists that could be "experimental". It's a term that could be up to the listener to determine which does make it different than other forms of music. Hip hop is obviously hip hop, rock is rock. I would not consider The Beatles, or Radiohead to be experimental artists. They have a handful of experimental songs between them. Same with MBV and the later Talk Talk albums. That's not what I had in mind, although all of those artists mentioned are great.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Fischman — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:07:29 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 11/28/2017 22:07

Same way I judge anything else. Does it sound good, or at least interesting (either emotionally or intellectually)? Is it engaging?

I don't give extra credit just because something has never been done before. Often, there's a reason it hasn't been done before: it sounds like crap.

Now I do give extra credit when something sounds new and fresh and is stimulating. That's a real accomplishment.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:44:30 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/28/2017 21:44

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

I feel like there is very little to denote what is good, or bad when it comes to the terms "experimental" or "Avant Garde" as a genre of music. When something is unable to be categorized it just gets shoehorned into the experimental genre. Most of these albums are fairly polarizing. Some people don't claim to "get it", so the album is absolute gibberish garbage, but there are also groups of people who swear it is a masterpiece that could not possibly have anything wrong with it. The nature of "experimental" music itself makes it hard to properly compare it to other works. Let's take something simple like The Beatles and Rolling Stones. The two groups clearly have strengths in different areas of songwriting, and musical execution. It's fairly easy to make a comparison of both bands. When comparing experimental music album, or bands with one another, it's hard to make a baseline by which they could be perceived as good or bad.

One thing I have been thinking about recently in regards to this question is whether or not the album sounds "forced" to me. Does it sound like the band was intentionally trying to do something out of the ordinary, or did it happen organically? Can the album hold my attention the entire run time? I have a problem with getting bored when an album like Trout Mask Replica (because who doesn't like beating a dead horse by bringing that up) or Twin Infinitives (an album I only recently listened to, which made me put some thought into this) goes on for a little too long. It can start to be like 70's Prog Rock masturbation. We get it, it sounds different, but haven't you already made that point?

Let's talk about that Royal Trux band. I'd always heard that "Twin Infinitives" album was real crazy, so I decided to give it a spin finally. I also listened to some songs off their other albums which seem to be more straightforward. I like the album, it has some interesting moments, but I could not shake this feeling that certain points felt like the band was trying too hard to be different, or weird. By about minute 40 I was already thinking, "OK I've heard what you can do now what's next?" It could be a chicken and egg scenario. I've already listened to so much crazy shit that nothing can really shock me anymore. It sounded pretty standard. Nothing had me pausing the music to ponder what I had just heard, or make me question reality (as sometimes these albums do). Minute 40 on actually has some of the best stuff on that album BTW.

So, to make a long story short, I think I'm finding a way to criticize this music more thoughtfully, but I haven't fully concocted a full proof plan yet.

Did any of this make sense, or was it just a ramble?

Edit: Bonus question, what would be your favorite album that would fit in the "avant garde/experimental" category?

Good experimental art has necessity, intelligence, craft, modesty, like any sort of art, in fact, only with a bigger proportion of concept in it.
Bad experimental art is pure concept, which is ego-driven and, in the end, silly.
It's easy to sense all that in contemporary art, for instance. Some installations touch your heart, some are just artists watching themselves doing art.
In litterature, french Nouveau Roman (around 1950) is typical. The refusal of narration was just a position. No real artistic necessity of writing such novels. Proust, on the other hand, is both experimental and immersive.
In cinema, David Lynch is experimental but with a vision and a personal universe that makes him likable. Eraserhead is not boring (on a good day).
As for music, I've got 2 experimental (obvious) albums in my top 3: Laughing Stock and Loveless. Both necessary, intelligent, crafty, modest, organic. Enjoyable, seductive.
And I'm sure AfterHours knows some atonal classical works that have the same qualities

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 04:14:32 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/28/2017 09:14

Interesting question...but I don't think it would be helpful to establish conventions for analysing music that is by definition unconventional.

Probably best to ask the same questions of "experimental music" as any other. Does it sustain my interest, provoke me or move me in some way?

In general, I don't personally seek out music that is primarily experimental that often, but I like to listen to something like Can or the Fall every now and then as a palette cleanser.

The artists who are most appreciated, in general, are probably those that bring original ideas and experimentation into conventional forms of music, like The Beatles, Bowie or Radiohead.

My favourite experimental album: Bitches Brew

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

bobbyb5 — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:59:55 GMT

Author: bobbyb5

Posted: 11/28/2017 06:59

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

All I can say is that the word experimental is used so often nowadays that it's ridiculous. And it's also used by people as if it's the ultimate compliment. As if something experimental is automatically good. Which is absurd, because after all, most experiments fail. Not only in science, but in the arts too. There are entire genres called experimental nowadays. This makes no sense whatsoever. If something fits into a genre, then by definition it's not experimental. This is a fascinating question for a topic though. It will be interesting to see what people say about it.

And I don't know what would be my favorite experimental album, but I do know that in many cases when people label something experimental, even though it's usually not, I tend to like it better than the music in the non-experimental genre of the same music. For example, I'm not interested at all in regular Hip Hop, but I like what people call experimental hip-hop. Or abstract Hip Hop. a
And there's other categories of some electronic music that work the same way for me.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Tap — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:38:26 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 11/28/2017 06:38

this is actually a good example for this thread, I was thinking about bringing it up earlier actually. because while I do have strong critical feelings about this album, but I feel like it doesn't entirely close the book on the album. the door is still open for someone to argue for why this human intervention was necessary or how the choice leads to something significantly different from just birds playing guitar and the unique merits of this specific thing. And then I could argue back about how no they are wrong and DISRESPECTING THE BIRDS and it could be a whole thing. But yeah, I think there's a way to fortify your position with concrete aspects of the music and really stake your claim on your position, but in a way where someone is able to stake an opposing view but you're still actually able to talk to each other about it.

also this Asmus Tietchens sounds interesting, I'll give it a good listen sometime.

Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?

Tap — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:17:08 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 11/28/2017 06:17

lol I actually did buy that album, it came out on cassauna. and they fucking ruined it! there's like this delay effect on it that forces an unchanging meter on the music and kills the free-flow of the music that the birds are making.