Hi Squonk nice post, there is a lot of quality to explore in music I think.
>From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the Art biz
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:44:27 EDT
>
SQuonk:
>I should first explain that popular music studies concerns all popular
>music
>from Folk music, Gilbert and Sullivan, Opera (Verdi wrote for and was
>appreciated by people on the street; the genre may have been appropriated
>by
>a pompous elite but that is snobbery), Blues, jazz, James last,
>underground,
>indie, punk, blar blar.
Davor:
Huh, we are on different wavelenghts here, since when is punk music popular?
I'm sorry but I find your definition strange? What's hot and what not? are
you talking about popularity or music made with an intention to reach a
large crowd?
>If one examines the history and development of popular music the area
>becomes fascinating.
The interplay between technology, politics, business, law and composers has
shaped who we are to an extent that would be ludicrous to ignore.
Davor:
Please xpand a little I have no idea what you are trying to achieve. What
development do you see, do you mean a quantative(as in scope) or a more
qualitive development? Do you see level struggles?
Davor:
> > very appealing in most cases, but when it comes to ''mass emotions''
>such
> > as in pop music, there is a great role for the giant, but why call this
> > giant not simply repetitive social behaviour initiated by media and
> > blindlessly taken over by today's youth?
Squonk:
>Why not indeed?
>If that is the nature of the Giant and the giant thrives by feeding on
>people's emotional states then let's look into it?
>Music is about quality as much if not more than anything else?
Davor:
What I was referring to was contemporary pop music, as in boy/girl bands,
britney etc. I really do not know about popular music from twenty years ago,
maybe you are still with me though the popular music of some years ago did
have more depth? or didn't it?
> > About non-pop, there is so much philosophy in underground music, music
>that
> > is real, i find much more consollation in hard-core and punk music than
>in
> > pop but
> > To give an example, the music of 'System of a down' is brilliant, so
>real,
> > pure, and intellectual, the same goes for Bad Religion and some other
> > groups. I can also enjoy classical music which is beyond words and I do
>not
> >
> > even know where to start describing Beethoven in MOQ terms, beyond
> > words....beyond levels....Beethoven is Quality.
> >
I agree with your analysis of value level interplay.
There is indeed a great deal of intellectual value in popular music's.
European classical tradition is high quality indeed - i am right with you on
that. We may be moving close in this area to the most sophisticated Human
mediation of DQ there has ever been?
Davor:
As said before, some music i really do not know what words to choose to
describe, but I will give it a go anyway. Classical music(but not
exclusively) is about communicating experiences, often without words, this
non-verbal communication is of such intensity that you can completely get
lost in the music and in your own emotions, you do not hear the music you
feel it. That's a big difference, hearing and feeling. It is philosophical
in the way that it expresses so elegantly the things the composers felt, the
music must have been written in a mind-state where feelings become tones,
and the tones become feeling. I must admit that for me it is a pure romantic
exprience. The music from nowadays are also about communicating experiences,
but the experiences are IMO less intens. For me classical music is closer or
more DQ than other musicgenres. Disadvantage is the possible
misinterpretations in what feeling is communicated, it seems that in popular
music the communicating is more direct in words and in melody, appealing to
larger crowd because of the easier accesibility. Maybe there is some trend
going on in the last decades where the communicating element(influencing the
receptiveness) of music is more important than the music? it seems your idea
about this is different?
> >
> >
> > PS: Pop music mediated texts????? Don't think so, pop music is not
> > text-dependent, in native english speaking countries the influence of
>text
> > is greater then in non-english speaking countries....most people have no
> > idea what songs actually mean. That is part of the popularity,
> > think about it...just look at the text of a few pop groups and you will
> > see,
> > the texts make no sense at all.
> >
>
>Davor, in the field of semiotics the term, 'Text' means aural, visual,
>sensual, written and spoken signs. That is what semiotics is all about, and
>it is used in cultural analysis.
>I feel semiotics will evolve into a tool of high power when memetics is
>given
>a sound value centre? We may then have a proto value centred language with
>which to describe the Giant?
Davor:
i am sorry I am not at all familiar with semiotics and in my haste I
translated text in the dutch word 'tekst' which means lyrics. Where do you
base your assumption on that this semiotics will evolve into a tool of high
power?
Davor
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST