Post subject: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?
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?
If you feel like that the albums you named are simply restating their case and not bringing anything new to the table as they get deep into their runtimes, then I would say how to follow through on this critique would be writing with as much detail as possible what that thing is. Who is this horse and why are they dead? What was the point that the album made earlier and then made again? A lot of music writing in all genres will just build the top floor of this argument, state that this thing is happening, without any of the foundation. So I'd say it's the same difficulty with all music criticism, you have to make sure you've got the foundation in.
Quote:
Edit: Bonus question, what would be your favorite album that would fit in the "avant garde/experimental" category?
I've been trying to actually sit down and do some real writing about this sort of music and one of my biggest issues is with spoilers. Like with this new Form A Log album (https://hausumountain.bandcamp.com/album/at-a-festival), they're sort of like the band Moth Cock who also had an excellent album out on that same label on the same day, like they're operating in that mid 00's Black Dice space of a band performing highly damaged songs with electronics, but like they still are these performed song things, so it doesn't get sounding all fussed over and delivers some clear forms that make it all less intimidating than it could be. But anyways on this Form A Log album, there is this one thing that happens that I love. But now it's like if you go and listen to it you'll be listening with "oh, I wonder when the thing happens" in mind. So I need to tell you that it's on the last track, the live one. But now you'll be listening to the last track, and you'll be waiting. And so like with my experience, I had no idea there would be a thing that I love a lot happen here, and so you can't ever really have the experience I did. So then maybe I should just not mention that there is a thing at all. But I still do want to talk about the thing and think there is something interesting to talk about with it. So it's almost like you have to have the writing delivered in two parts. Because even with things that less resemble traditional spoilers, I think there are particular ways of framing the work that emphasize a specific emotional or intellectual response. That response took multiple listens to arrive at, and I think it can be a roadblock for someone to have in their mind while approaching something for the first time.
for the more avant garde or experimental, i find it's best to ask what the artist's agenda, goals and constraints were and evaluate on those merits. if the artist wants to play hockey, don't impose football on them. that sort of thing. obviously, we're dancing about architecture again. BUT. it works to a degree.
say two separate artists want to make an entire album out of splashing sounds.
artist one just lies in his bathtub with a field recorder rolling and splashes about for half an hour. given the constraints of the experiment, he too has accomplished what he set out to do, but the result was rather unsatisfying.
artist two goes all out. they sample tons of water splashes, apple juice, pour water into the tub and the basin and the laundry machine and the ice box and the nightstand. they meticulously splash about until they've accomplished something incredible: a symphony of water. granted, this is never going to hit the billboard. it probably won't even splash the college radios. the audience will be limited, and most will find it boring. but given the constraints, i'd say something awesome was accomplished. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
All interesting comments Tap. I will have to check out the albums you mentioned. I think I've found that in rock, hip hop, and pop music it is much easier to distinguish the wheat from the chaff (is that expression widely used?) Maybe it's because I have a better idea as to how that music is made than other genres. I feel my weakest evaluations are with Classical and Jazz, because I don't understand the composition. I find most classical and jazz I listen to to be enjoyable. 95 albums or compositions out of 100 I would probably find enjoyable from those genres, but I couldn't tell you why I really liked them other than, "Oh well this one sounded dark and eerie". Whereas with rock music i would maybe 60 out of 100 I would listen to would be OK, although that seems pretty generous. I can pinpoint my exact feelings about those pieces of music a lot easier than I can with classical music. But I guess that is just the nature of music that is typically more complex. As a person who deals with literature, it can be frustrating when I can't fully articulate my reasoning on something; similar to a dense piece of poetry that might take a hundred reads to fully comprehend.
My current favorite weirdness is this industrial catastrophe.
Stuff like Frank Zappa, Red Crayola, Captain Beefheart... Idk I see great value in it, but I have a hard time "liking" it. Like it has value... immense value. It just feels like an experiment. No heart (even if I'm wrong in saying that).. .it just doesn't feel like there's not a lot of heart in it.
It's like this... this is beautiful and all ,but would I really buy the album?
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.
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.
Post subject: Re: How to Critique "Experimental" Music (or art)?
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?
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.
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.
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
