DRUMMER CAFE

I wonder if these same people feel that in order for a written piece to be poetry, it must rhyme?

I think the real question here is, How does anybody elses actions in the studio and on stage affect you as a musician personaly?.  

For me, I don't know that it does.  I've never been in a project that was rivaling for any of the fans that seem to follow these genres or types of entertainers.  I do my stuff for me, and if others enjoy it, awsome.  I've no real intention on making music my career so maybe I have a different POV.

563,
I mis-read  or mis-interpeted your words as it seems we agree on the intent.

Joe,
Do you disagree about from in art?  Do you disagree that there are not certain inherent characteristics in Jazz?  or any art form?  Generally There's a theory behind it, a way to deconstruct it.  Jazz has inherent qualities that make it the unique art from that it is and those qualities are that it swings and there is imporvisation.  Do you disagree?

Delta Blues use a 12 bar blues form (sometimes stretched or compacted but still implied).  There are qualities inherent to Delta Blues that make it distinct from say Jazz.  


Poerty?  I don't know.  It doesn't have to dead on ryhme, but there is a rhyme scheme in place.  Iambic pentameter for example.

Squeeze and Bart,
I apologize for being out of line and if I offended.  I've been thinking about the essence and aesthetic of art lately.  The idea of progression occurred to me as I was listening to some old Jazz records.  You can trace Jazz through its history going back to New Orleans Brass Bands, ragtime, Blues, Tin Pan Alley tunes etc.  You can listen to early Dixieland stuff by Armstrong and progress through the years to BeBop and Cool Jazz and you can notice a progression:  More emphasis on viruoisity, more emphasis on arranging, more emphasis on form (32 bar choruses, aaba, etc) more emphasis on soloing....etc.  

Its not that Coltrane is better than Armstrong,. its that the music has progressed to somewhere else between 1917 and 1950.   Sometimes art forms reach a dead end, sometimes there may be inherent limitations within that particular art form that prevent it from progressing past a certain point.  Once that point is reached, what happens?  Artists look for different intent?  Artists start to attempt to install gimicks to freshen it up?  Artists try to appeal that form to a larger audience? What?  

I think that this is a worthy discussion that we are having.  Once again, I apologize for the rant.  

Free Jazz contains imrpovisation and almost always swings.  Even when Jazz doesn't swing, it is still implied are there are elements or characteristics of swing.  There are characteristics of Jazz present becasue Jazz has inherent or intrinsic qualities.

"Free Jazz" is also still built on form and structure because they are building off modes, scales and other aspects that can be deconstructed.

Much the same as my example with the Delta Blues, those guys don't always play 12 bar patterns, sometimes they stretch it out or compress it, but the 12 bar Blues pattern is still implied.   Their pharses are built off the 12 bar blues form.

In the poetry, there is still a rhyme scheme in place.  Even if the words don't ryhme, there is meter to the syllabels.  There is form present.
Even free verse has some sort of structure to it, otherwise what's to distinguish it from a bunch of words thrown together?  It can be deconstructed.  Sure there are exceptions, but all all of these exceptions still have implications of form.

What happens when you remove form?  Cage and other have tried that, but pure aleatoric aspects become unintersting to most people becasue there is lack of some sort of form or structure.  There's nothing to deconstruct in "4'22".  Even Schoesnberg's rejection of the Western system of music is a rigid form.  He wanted to replace our system with a new more rigid system that doesn't discriminate to certain forms such as tonic and dominant.  It's only palatable to  a few highly trained ears who are cpable of distinuishing the form.  To understand Schoenberg, Berg and Webern is to understand their form and structure.  

This is not just a human tendancy, it happens in nature.  Are you familar with The Golden Mean?  It exists whether we call it that or not.  It exists whether we apply a system to it or not.  We make sense out of art by deconstructing it to some extent.

I don't want to drag this farther of topic, but....  Words can be put together and structured by meaning, regardless of rhythmic or rhyming patterns, and still be defined as poetry.  Often the reader determines the meter of poetry in that accents aren't written and can be interpreted differently.

All this has to do with ethics... how?

My 5 cents...

I recently went to see Brian Wilson perform SMiLE,
and people were talking about Autotune.  (I think there are some that just invoke it).  Brian is in his 60's now, and singing parts that bordered on impossible even when he was in his 20's. There were enough shaky notes for me to be convinced that Autotune was not involved.
That got me to thinking though....when does technology become a crutch?  When a singer does a vocal punch in the studio?  Sound Replacer in Pro Tools? A triggered snare sound?  A Mellotron sample? To me, it is 100% subjective.

I think ethics doesn't even begin to enter into this particular equation. Someone who goes to see Britney, at least the teeny bopper audience, couldn't care less about the "why's" of the show, as long as there are more dancers onstage than in the audience.
I can't believe that anyone would be bothered if they knew that Britney wasn't singing; I don't know anyone that thinks she is even passable as a musician.  It's not like she is Yo Yo Ma.
Personally, I expect more from jazz musicians as well as rock musicians.  Ticket prices are often ridiculous.  I don't want to blow an entire paycheck and take a day off from work to go listen to a Gateway computer.  Additional musicians and even a little sequencing is fine to me.
To pop concert goers, I say "caveat emptor"(this from a BIG fan of pop music, BTW).  96 people onstage dancing to a MIDI'd chain of samplers and sequencers doesn't entertain me.  However, I don't think that most pop fans or the general public are that discerning.  I don't think that most of the cars leaving the Britney concert are listening to Return To Forever or Art Tatum.
Someone mentioned Tori Amos before.  I'd like to add Vanessa Carlton to the list of performers out there who can get the job done with just her and a piano.  It's even more courageous of her to play solo, because her contemporaries ARE Britney, Justin, et al., and I did see her take the stage following  a forgettable pop act with the requisite army of dancers.  To me, Vanessa's a cut above. She writes and performs her own material...*slaps head* who knew?


Dan

Who descontructs and organizes random sounds?  I agree that you could consider this sort of piece from this perspective, but if you subscribe to that then you are essentially re-enforcing my argument by putting emphasis on form and the ability to deconstruct being tied in with aesthetics.

Art has form.  Your ability to deconstruct this form is related to your level of understanding and ultimately how much you appreciate it.  
Words are organized into groups, generally called sentences or phrases (in poetry).  Sentences are organized into larger phrases or paragraghs, etc.  Your ability to decontruct the meaning of individual words along with the meaning of combinations of words and phrases will determine your understanding of those words.   How those words are organized, how they are structured and used will determine how interpetable they are.  Some  writing is easier to decontruct than others.  For example, a childern's story os going to be easier to decontruct than the writing of Nietzsche of Faulkner.  It is the same with music.

As to the public having interest in the validity of art.  There has always been a presence and a lack of presence of interest in this subject.  A riot ensued at the premier of The Rite of Spring.   Andy Warhol and  John Cage were both prominent artists who forced people to consider the validity of art.  Even to this day, artists like Robert Maplethorpe  force people to consider the validity of art.  Though there is little emphasis in pop culture, there is a presence.  Stripping Milli Vanilli of a Grammy has to do with validity.   But, perhaps it is in this area (concerning the validity of art) that pop culture has regressed.  Would an artist loose a grammy today for the same thing?  Probably not.  Maybe, but probably not.   Musicianship and artist validity has been de-emphasized.  Though, this will probably go as far as it can go and there will be some sort of reactionary movement against it.  

Its not that technology is evil and how we use it.  The disipline of Photograghy  has been suffering the same battle with the advent of digital photograghy.  The ability to capture quality and/or artistic photos has been de-emphasized by the ease of technology.   It will continue to struggle until there is balance reached.   This sort of balance will not occur until the culture demands it.

All of us as musicians/artists have the ability to create art (music) that is valid.  Art that has integerity and is not driven by selfishness.  Music that is driven by the need to create.  You give them the real thing so that they don't have to go see a guy who doesn't really sing or play.

That's the beauty of the forum.  If everyone had identical opinions,  there'd only be one post per topic!

As I type this I'm listening to a live recording of the Who from their July gig in Sydney this year.

I find it quite enjoyable hearing Roger Daltry forget the lyrics to "Substitute" and some of the tempo's don't quite seem where they should be.(but then, they have always been thus)

As much as I think they could possibly benifitted from the use of some "live" tools to make them sound better, at least I know I'm getting a raw, live performance.