|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
|
| Poll: Trout Mask Replica vs. White Light/White Heat |
|
|
|
|
| Trout Mask Replica |
|
33% |
[18] |
| White Light/White Heat |
|
66% |
[36] |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Votes : 54 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tap
to resume download
Gender: Female
Age: 38
|
- #61
- Posted: 02/03/2018 11:29
- Post subject:
|
economics is a man made beast tho. and sometimes things are simple and some things are complex and some things are somewhere in the middle and the description has nothing to do with their subjective quality or merit, it is just a statement of fact about their construction.
I don't think the point of this video is to be the end of a conversation, to have fully expressed every facet of what it means to be a human experiencing this music. it's just trying to show what is happening in this one song. if everyone was like "bears are an expression of Zeus' madness! they are glorious and unknowable and we must fear them" even though those people are totally on the right track, we should fear bears, still in that situation maybe there is some value to someone saying they're made of fur and have sharp teeth and big paws and are mammals etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
PurpleHazel
|
- #62
- Posted: 02/04/2018 08:06
- Post subject:
|
| Puncture Repair wrote: | | I don't want to get too into the semantics. I think complexity when it comes to man-made expression is a different beast. ...That's where 'complexity' is in anything subjective. |
Definition of complex (adj.):
1.consisting of many different and connected parts.
- not easy to analyze or understand; complicated or intricate.
Haven't seen any definition of complex that addresses the man-made or the arts specifically (just math and chemistry). If you have, please share. Obviously, TMR meets the above definition easily.
| Quote: | | I've only written papers on literacy and politics, but it was driven into me from a young age that when writing anything academic you make your point, you provide your evidence, and then you justify why that evidence links to your point. |
At the beginning of the video, Andreyev states his aim:
"...one thing that’s often struck me is that critics attempting to write about this album have tended to rely, rather excessively in my view, on emotional descriptors of what their experience of listening to it is which doesn’t always help us to get a handle on exactly what is going on in one of these songs from a musical or analytical perspective. So I’m going to try to do that and I’m going to look at it using precise technical and analytical terminology so that we really get a sense of what this thing is exactly."
To paraphrase it more succinctly, I believe he's saying that instead of providing a subjective, emotional review as music critics usually do, he's going to analyze the song from a technical musical perspective. That's exactly what he does, perhaps more so after the analysis of the lyrics.
| Quote: | | He calls it a 'first person lyric narrative piece', which isn’t a thing, it’s just some words he put in order on the spot. |
A first-person narrative lyric is a thing, he just reversed the words lyric and narrative.
| Quote: | | It would similar to writing a paper on why Bears are scary, then showing that they are made of fur, sharp teeth, and big paws, and saying 'like I said, very scary'. |
Bears being scary is subjective. Someone in a Humvee, or Timothy Treadwell, the subject of the documentary "Grizzly Man," might not have found bears scary. Andreyev states he wants to avoid the subjective reviews music critics usually write and examine the music from a more objective, technical angle. Even if he praises the album in passing a couple of times, his stated purpose is not to argue how awesome the album is, but analyze the music technically.
If you think his technical musical analysis is dry or lifeless, and you would've preferred another type of analysis, that's totally cool. But I think he more or less delivers on his stated aim.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Puncture Repair
|
- #63
- Posted: 02/04/2018 13:11
- Post subject:
|
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | Obviously, TMR meets the above definition easily. |
Why?
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | Bears being scary is subjective. Someone in a Humvee, or Timothy Treadwell, the subject of the documentary "Grizzly Man," might not have found bears scary. |
Exactly my point. You begin analyzing the point where you offer contextual examples. I don't want to summon "yet another" subjective vs objective debate - but I'm definitely on the 'music is entirely subjective' side of the fence. Is there any value in breaking down a songs objective components? Yes, but only if it's supporting a subjective argument.
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | he just reversed the words lyric and narrative. |
That was pretty complex of him, amarite
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
PurpleHazel
|
- #64
- Posted: 02/05/2018 05:45
- Post subject:
|
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | Obviously, TMR meets the above definition easily. |
| Puncture Repair wrote: | | Why? |
Because TMR consists "of many different and connected parts."
| Quote: | | Is there any value in breaking down a songs objective components? Yes, but only if it's supporting a subjective argument. |
If your opinion is that an analysis only has value if it's supporting a subjective argument, that's totally reasonable. But that wasn't his aim, and some people found the video to have value (just as others seemed not to).
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Puncture Repair
|
- #65
- Posted: 02/05/2018 15:01
- Post subject:
|
| PurpleHazel wrote: | | Because TMR consists "of many different and connected parts." |
Here's the thing, I'm not much of a musician, but I can play all the chords present in Frownland, and I like to think I would be pretty capable of writing different simple melodies and have them play over one another in a way that sounded non-conventional. That said, I don't think I would be able to create Frownland.
What is it that separates my many different and connected parts to Beefheart's many different and connected parts?
Are they both complex?
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
PurpleHazel
|
- #66
- Posted: 02/06/2018 07:56
- Post subject:
|
| Puncture Repair wrote: | Here's the thing, I'm not much of a musician, but I can play all the chords present in Frownland, and I like to think I would be pretty capable of writing different simple melodies and have them play over one another in a way that sounded non-conventional. That said, I don't think I would be able to create Frownland.
What is it that separates my many different and connected parts to Beefheart's many different and connected parts?
Are they both complex? |
Fair question. If you could play 20 melodies in two minutes that fitted together as a song in your mind, and another guitarist played a different 20 melodies you'd written for him at the same time -- maybe threw in another tim signature -- and you'd worked it out enough in advance that the resulting song made sense to you, I'd say that was complex. Anything that's greatly more complicated than the average for that musical genre, I'd consider complex.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Thad
|
- #67
- Posted: 02/07/2018 02:13
- Post subject:
|
|
Trout Mask just doesn't do it for me like the Velvets. Nothing to do with merit and I can't really say why, but that's just how music is sometimes
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 7 of 7 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
