dagblog - Comments for "This Billionaire Wants Everyone to Move on From His Crimes"

yeah, that's the same exact

artappraiser — Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:36:58 +0000

In reply to Nice - i was a bit annoyed at

yeah, that's the same exact thing I felt watching it. Then it struck me like this after thinking about it: this is the correct way to revise history, it doesn't have to be: replace one bible with another, which is what the woke zeitgeist is offering now. It actually never was a bible in my lifetime, that's just the woke narrative. Looking outside your frame was always a thing everyone did in academia: it was more like hey, ever think you are stuck inside a frame, consider this frame instead, just sayin.

The neatest thing about it for me as far as rock is concerned: it really goes to the difference between American and Brit rock. Brit rock influenced by American blues but in a very simplistic way.

Nice - i was a bit annoyed at

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:23:00 +0000

In reply to You and PP might enjoy

Nice - i was a bit annoyed at first, but then it seemed to settle down a bit, stop trying to prove too much. Link Wray, Randy Castillo, Jesse Ed, even the Buffy St. Marie stuff was surprising. Of course Robbie Robertson is good fun, and the Hendrix bit - he's all of these things, not denying any part of it. And yeah, New Orleans as the great swampland of bastardized people, one big muddy delta.

You and PP might enjoy

artappraiser — Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:24:13 +0000

In reply to I'd like to expand on this a

You and PP might enjoy watching this if you haven't, (I just did, now, they played on the local PBS tho it was made in 2019.) Some might call it revisionist, I just found it adding a little nuance to what it is still pretty simplistic "rock n roll history"

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/rumble/

In a sense you're

ocean-kat — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 22:07:37 +0000

In reply to I missed where you said you

In a sense you're illustrating my point. Your examples are 60/70 ish rock. My point was that the music for the masses has gotten simpler. I don't get why you're constantly bringing up "the beat" when I specifically said that I was just picking one point of many to delve more deeply into it and several times brought up other points. Numerous computer programmers have attempted to answer that question and what ever algorithm they use they invariably find that pop/rock has become simpler harmonically, melodically, rhythmically, lyrically etc. People argue whether that's good or bad, which it what you seem to want to do but that's not what I'm doing. So I can't debate you on that question. I'm just looking at what's happening attempting to not make invidious comparisons

I'm not convinced people feel driven to describe music as part of listening to it,

And I'm not trying to convince you of it. Several times I discussed the difference between implicit and explicit understanding of a subject. Just because I attempted to explicitly explain one aspect of one song in no way implied everyone should be able to do that. I never once implied or stated that everyone should learn enough to make their implicit knowledge explicit. The vast majority of people understand music implicitly whether they listen to the most complex jazz or the most simple pop.

I missed where you said you

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:51:00 +0000

In reply to I don't know how to respond

I missed where you said you weren't going to compare jazz to rock (and I'm not sure Dimeola's most famous piece is "jazz"), but you did stress this:

can make unskilled listeners uncomfortable as they lose a sense of where the beat is.

I think one main reason unskilled listeners don't like more complex music is because they can't understand implicitly what I've just explained explicitly.

which i think sells many listeners short - lots of listeners - stoner hippies largely - liked Zappa and The Dead's intricate timing, but would also turn around and out on Jefferson Airplane or The Fugs or Janis or back to Captain Beefhart. Given enough acid, the sense of the beat was either easier or irrelevant, though lots of dancing going on. I'd guess much of the popularity was shared social milieu, the region's artists vs imports. I'm not convinced people feel driven to describe music as part of listening to it, though some do. I r call discussions about Buford's 8/17 over 15/17 beats or some such, but we certainly didn't do that for every song. Rush attracted massive numbers of pretty straightforward rock fans, but Neil Peart and Geddy Lee played anything but simple timings.

I also remember Electric Light Orchestra having a couple nice orchestrated albums (El Dorado for one - not being terribly complex timing wise - still, it launched 2 of their biggest hits that one might think a bit challenging for typical radio listeners what changes internet has wrought (and what drives popularity and metrics of popularity) has changed greatly the last 20 years. Who was listening to what in past eras was defined by record sales and guesstimated radio listenership (plus concert sales) - now it's more measurable downloads and streams.

I don't know how to respond

ocean-kat — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:19:46 +0000

In reply to Alright, you might like this

I don't know how to respond to this. First off I'm not annoyed at all by anything you've said. But you don't seem to be responding to what I said. I never once compared jazz or jazz musicians to each other or to a rock musician. If I were going to do that I wouldn't have compared some skilled jazz soloist like Dimeola to Dylan who isn't know as a "great" guitar player. I could conceivable compare a jazz guitarist to a rock musician known as a "great" guitar soloist, like Eric Clapton. But again I specifically said I'm not going to compare jazz to rock.

Of course rhythm isn't the

ocean-kat — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 22:23:59 +0000

In reply to Response to OK: there are

Of course rhythm isn't the only thing that matters. I thought I made that clear in my post. I wanted to go deeply into one song and just one point about that song rather than make a bunch of general points about many different songs. I also wanted to make it accessible as much as possible without dumbing it down too much. I thought enough people had at least learned a musical instrument at a basic level and would know what a time signature was so I wouldn't be talking over their heads. I could have focused on a different point or musician, for example Sting's use of different modes and how that affects his melodies and harmonies but most people don't even have a clue what modes are. I could have looked at the frequent key changes in a well know tune like The Girl From Ipanema but I wanted to choose something from the rock genre and something more modern than classic rock.

Mostly I felt misunderstood in that every time I post on art to Arta she seems to think I'm looking for her to list her favorite artists or paintings. Not only don't I expect or desire anything from her as one who is studied in the field of art but what I might "want" from a discussion on art wouldn't be a list of favorite paintings but some type of esoteric or knowledgeable explanation of what is happening in the painting. What did the artist do and some hypothesis as to why he did it. This was an attempt to illustrate that in a field I think I'm well educated and studied in, music.

Alright, you might like this

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 22:21:00 +0000

In reply to Of course rhythm isn't the

Alright, you might like this set of interviews ( or not)

https://youtu.be/Ejs1G2yLBM8

What surprised me was 1) how human they all are, 2) how while it was presumes Phil Collins made a power play to take over vocals, he was pissed that he couldn't just play drums, and 3) the irony that as good as Gabriel was, his leaving let Genesis reach much bigger success.

As for your point, it seemed you thought many people couldn't grasp complex music, so went for simpler, more sexualized, whatever. Yet that strikes me as all the Jaco (?) Pastorious/John McGlaughlin debates of old, who's the best and what not. Granted Al Dimeola can blow away Dylan's guitar playing, but maybe it's just not the right mood. I can discuss timings and what not, and Tribute to Jack Johnson used to be one of my faves, along with all that Rahsaan Roland Kirk multiple horn thing, but after 10000s of albums they all have their place. For one thing, the search for something new used to be so ingrained - 3 albums by someone and you went out and found a new flame - only a few were precious enough to hold onto longer. I can imagine maybe AA's world is like that - you like stuff, but there's so much out there, you just keep collecting and curating in your brain if nowhere else.

N.B. i largely can't listen to old stuff anymore - i simply don't care, I'm in a different space, most feels like didn't age well or didn't age with me. I always used stuff and moved on. Contrariwise i heard Whoopi Goldberg play some tunes in a movie the other day, including a Ringo Starr song of all things, plus Superstar, and it came across sweet and damn good. Except i couldn't get them out of my head for days, which sucked. I can walk into a store and come out knowing what songs were playing on the speakers - most are oblivious to it.

Anyway, all this just seemed to annoy you, so I'll shut up now.

Response to OK: there are

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:19:00 +0000

In reply to I'd like to expand on this a

Response to OK: there are several thoughts i have.

I listened to a lot of Fripp (Crimson/League of Gentlemen), Tone Dogs (check out Ankety Low Day), Gabriel/early Genesis, Thick as a Brick, and other so-called art rock. There are sometimes tradeoffs in craft vs musicianship for one - timing is just one aspect of complexity - Eno's layers of aural effects in ambient music and rock 'n roll are another example. I thought Beyonce's added vocal fx & harmonies distinctly improved a recent rather humdrum CardiB song. Fripp has his theory that having the skill to play 500 things but still choosing to play that open E power chord is more powerful than a garage band that only knows that chord. But of course that's only 1 educated opinion - maybe Ramones and Sex Pistols are just fine without a decade of practice. At the end of the day, songs are songs - and if the hooks aren't there, "Roundabout" becomes Yes's later doodling. I just watched a nice Genesis video to commemorate the very difficult Lamb Lies Down sessions and tour. Despite some very impressive complex work, the biggest hit was the simple but catchy & haunting "Carpet Crawlers". And while the magnetic orchestral 18 minute Supper's Ready was a huge achievement, it still smelled of grandiose art school, rather than the more refined, better mixed (and more song-oriented) Lamb. Literature-wise you might compare Steinbeck's Of Míce and Men with Grapes of Wrath or East of Eden. One is stripped down but compelling; the other two build over time, are thick but immersive. Which is better? Depends on your mood. Charlie Watts threw a Samba beat on Sympathy for the Devil and suddenly it was fresh. Not like complex Gang of 4 or XTC timings (later to be "Shriekback"), but enough to shake it up, much like Chrissie Hynde's timings and chord progressions. But that can be done with Paint it Black sitar, a voice box like Peter Frampton, Sinead's high range, Townsend's extended synth intro to Baba O'Reilly, and so on. XTC's arguably no more musical than some of the best bluegrass players out there (Sneaky Pete's steel guitar is mesmerizing and tough to play, and I once watched a banjo group churn out a very respectable "Purple Haze" with harmonies on demand at a festival. Again, there are multiple paths to complexity. And sometimes complex for its own sake sounds contrived. And sometimes there's a quirk, like Neil Young's authentic and passionate voice that lacks intimal perfection - yet he's written arguably 100 top notch songs, mostly simple, but expressing a number of moods. We listen to music to reflect, to find energy, to dance, to rebel, to feel sad, to fill the background, to feel funky, and so on. Dexy's Midnight Runners could shift timing, speed, sentimental-to-party-and-back. Fishbone mid-eighties had lots of timing changes and full band onslaught - but much more groovy and chaotic freestyle than XTC with multiple singers and crazy ska horns... (check out Party at Ground Zero or U.G.L.Y.). Rasputina turned a 3-girl cello circle into a weird frenzied goth rock 'n roll (did i note the importance of ambient changes? Pixies were great at it, but pre-MP3 compression Larks Tongue in Aspic was able to go from a nearly inaudible sound to full audio assault that would blow hardy Klipsch speakers (tested multiple times). And *collections themselves* are complex. That we might listen to songs back to back with diverging timing, heaviness, styles partly solves the problem of trying to do it in one song over 2 albums (say a Tales of Topographic Oceans) - artists would mix up their own styles, while a random play on your CD/PC collection can provide much of the same diversity.

But in the end we like what we like, and even that *may* evolve. I hated Elvis Costello the first time I heard him, later grew on me. Same with The Cure - listen to the aural and mood complexity of The Top There are masters at kitsch like Nancy Sinatra or Vive la Fete, and then in-your-face singers like Nick Cave/Birthday Party & Tom Waits (lots of time shifting), 80s niche complex shifting fare like Cocteau Twins and Einsturzende Neubaten, and then more standard but quirky fare like Radiohead or Gorillaz, and then a lot of ethnic world music to fill other gaps. It's a movable feast. (Oh yeah, i can appreciate classical music, but overall it's never been my thing. But i also greatly appreciate how good soundtracks whether songs or effects greatly enhance movies.)

I'd like to expand on this a

ocean-kat — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 23:36:38 +0000

In reply to It's not about changing

I'd like to expand on this a bit. I'm not much interested in a list of what a person likes, but if they have knowledge in the subject I'm interested in why they like it. That can help me understand art and maybe help me see something my untrained eye can't easily see. Some people simply see better than other people and I'd like to learn more about how to do that. Just as some people can hear more in a song and maybe help other people hear it

I don't really think about good or bad or even I like this but don't like that. I like music, all of it, every genre and form. But some songs are ordinary and not very interesting to me, trivial. Other songs are extraordinary, interesting things are happening. It reminds me of an interview I saw of Peter Gabriel who is known for his innovative music videos. When asked about it he replied, paraphrasing, "Everyone should be able to do what ever type of video they want but it seems to me that almost everyone wants to do the same thing almost everyone else is doing." Musically that is also what almost everyone in rock wants to do. Almost the same thing everyone else is doing. And it's getting more and more common for most everyone to do almost the same thing. It used to be more common for bands to do something original but still occasionally a band will do something original. For example: This song by XTC, a well know mostly traditional rock band.

I could write a dozen paragraphs about this song but I'll choose just one point. The constant time changes. There are periodically several measures of 3/4 in a mostly 4/4 song. But the measures in 3/4 aren't like a waltz, in 3. They're subdivided into 2. It's 2 over 3 so every 2 measures of 3 feels/sounds like 4. It feels like a slow 4/4 followed by a slightly quicker 4/4. The increase in intensity adds to the upbeat feel of the song and accentuates the mood of optimism that matches the message in the lyrics. Add to this that the bass is playing a 4 beat lick that is repeated 3 times equaling 12 beats over 4 measures of 3/4 equaling 12 beats. This really throws off an easy beat to tap your foot to. This isn't easy to play smoothly, young or less skilled musicians wouldn't be able to do it and it's more difficult to listen to and can make unskilled listeners uncomfortable as they lose a sense of where the beat is.

I think one main reason unskilled listeners don't like more complex music is because they can't understand implicitly what I've just explained explicitly. They get lost and the order in the music becomes chaos/noise for them. Again, I'm not asking you to do something similar with art that I've just done with this song. Post what you want. Perhaps the effort to dumb it down to my or maybe our level is too time consuming and not interesting or fun for you. This is just how I think about music and how I attempt to think about other art forms