Return-Path: <SYSMGR@cbos.uc.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:29:00 -0800
From:         SYSMGR@CBOS.UC.EDU
Subject:      Recipient mailbox is full. Returning message to sender

             WARNING: THIS IS LONG!!

   At the risk of getting too far afield from the original question, woj
had some interesting observations that deserve comment:

>Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:18:37 EST
>From:         a mirror cracked from side to side <REWOICC@ERENJ.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things


>>The Central Scrutinizer sez:
>>Since economics and pandering to the lowest common denominator
>>already drive the "popular" music arena,

>is this really true? i've found that, given something different, most people
>will be at the very least receptive to it. they may not like it, but they
>will give it a chance. case in point: the sugarcubes. when "birthday" began
>to get some airplay on emptv, one reason people liked it was cos it was so
>different from anything they were used to (that opens the question of
>whether or not emptv defines acceptance, but for the time being, we'll
>ignore that).

   Ah, but I can't ignore that.  By nature, the media (MTV, in this case)
*must* define acceptance.  Without that premise, it would have to fail.
I.e., it has to either *make* something become acceptable (probably through
continued promotion/airplay) or it has to abandon that in favor of
something that *is* or can be made acceptable (= popular).
   I'm not trying to fault the listener as much as I am the nature of
commercial/popular music.  I only blame the listener who is complacent
enough to let the "normal" commercial media determine his/her listening
choices.  Unfortunately, the nature of the marketing beast is to be
inclusive, or pander to a common denominator.  Like it or not, that's
usually fairly far down the "evolutionary scale" in musical awareness.


>i have no qualms about being a musical snob regarding what *i* listen to,
>but i shy from being a musical snob disparaging what *others* listen to.

   I guess I'm not that shy.  :*)  My criticism is not so much over the
specific choice of listening material as it is over the way the market is
set up.  If acts become popular because they adhere to the formula of the
day, more power to them for knowing how to play the game.  However, the
game itself is where the problem lies.  It has little to do with musical
substance, and everything to do with image.  [Insert standard Zappa quote
about tight trousers and long hair here.]


>>I expect a continuation of the "catch-of-the-day" philosophy of "new" music.
>{...}
>>The resulting sound is often a weak compromise rather than a fresh musical
>>statement.

>while the latter is not always true, the former seems to be a fair description
>of the process: some band does something strange which catches the attention
>of some radio station/video channel/record exec; said entity plugs said band
>bringing them some success and notority; other labels follow suit with their
>own version of said novelty.

   Agreed.  I had not intended to establish a direct causal relationship
between the two thoughts above.  With the second statement I was attempting
to describe the end result of many efforts to incorporate seemingly
disparate styles into a new "synthesis".  But the scenario you describe
gives me the opportunity to concoct such a relationship.  To wit:  And once
the other labels and bands start jumping on the trend-wagon, then we are
oft-times left with a "weak compromise (copy) rather than a fresh musical
statement."


>in zorn's case, the "cartoon" epithet, at least in my case, is due to the
>music's effect on me - i often laugh out loud when i hear his work since
>it can sound very ludicrous. "juxtaposition" is a better word for what
>you're getting at.

   I agree about his work provoking laughter.  After the initial shock of
hearing some of it, I think a lot of it becomes funny.  The juxtaposition
of styles seems to produce that reaction in me.


>i don't think that is the future of musical development though. zorn's
>work is fascinating, but it's more of a curiosity than a progression. not
>enough people are going to hear that stuff for it to have a lasting effect
>on the musical world.

   I won't disagree with you about the effect Zorn's music will have on the
musical world.  (The effect I'd *like* for it to have is a different
story). I guess I should have stressed that in the context of the original
quote, the "mainstream" musical world was not the focus of my attention.
   We'll probably wind up agreeing to disagree on this, but I find very
little in the mainstream musical world that has a lasting effect on me.  I
listen to all kinds of music that I am able to enjoy without it having the
same "profound" effect on me that my "essential" recordings do.
   I tend to think of Zorn as somewhere between a progression and a
curiosity.  He has done quite a bit to combine a vast amount of musical
history in a refreshing (if often outrageous) fashion.

   On the lighter side of this -- there's a teevee commercial (Nike?) that
has a quick cut from one of his tunes ("Batman Theme"? from _Naked City_).
So, who knows -- maybe Zorn will sign that big record deal with Columbia
and start pumping out Pepsi commercials before long.  ;*)


>synthesis of other forms and styles into popular music can be satisfying
>and developmental (paul simon's _graceland_, peter gabriel's real world
>label, so on). sad to say, but that may be the best way for development
>if only cos that way the most people can integrate it into their idea of
>what music can be. all that the loonies on the fringe do is all well and
>good, but it has little effect on what the "lowest common denominator"
>will think music is or should sound like until it trickles down through
>the cycle into the realm of popular music.

   At the risk of showing my snobbism again -- I can't afford to rely on
some trickle-down effect of what is deemed "popular" as my guide for
listening.  I have always relied on a "network" of friends to help keep me
abreast of new and different (hell, even "old and different") music.
Allmusic currently plays a significant role in that, because whether I
enjoy the same music as others on this list, most of us have decided to
take a slightly unconventional route.  This involves reducing the role that
normal media plays in filtering what eventually trickles down.
   I enjoy efforts at synthesis like what Simon has tried to do, but it
usually winds up leaving me wanting after a certain point.  That's probably
largely due to my own skepticism of how many record execs, station
managers, etc. would even give the music a second look if it wasn't for
Simon's or Gabriel's name.  I applaud their efforts, but wish the music
they are helping to expose could be left to stand on its own merit.
   That may be one reason why I like the _World Out Of Time_ recording so
much.  Kaiser and Lindley do add their own musical touches, but they seem
to be directed at molding their styles to complement the Malagasy
musicians.  The Malagasys have already accomplished the synthesis of
various indigenous and pop musics -- Lindley and Kaiser just let them
showcase that.


>at the same time, i would say that it is probable that other forms of music
>will sproing into existance as we find different ways to make noise. one
>hundred years ago, no one would have thought that banging metal sheets
>would be music and now there is a thriving japanese noize scene. go figure.

   Others have covered the issues of "collective consciousness" in music, so
I'll spare you all any more verbose, unclear, inarticulate things.  :*)

>time to play volleyball.

   Time to do some of that work they supposedly pay me for around here.  :*)


      bye,
      cmv ("chuckrateez")
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU