* the following will discuss some hazy thoughts i've had, and suffers *
* from the lack of a good editor or rewrite to tidy them up *
my thoughts were mainly provoked by a friend who would laugh at
what i, and to some extent we, listen to (especially instrumental
trip/hip hop). his initial response to listening to some ninja-tune
stuff (i forget the song, it was one of dj food's jazz brakes)
was "i bet the guy that wrote that is not as intelligent as bach".
i thought this was a ridiculous comment, mainly because who gives
a shit how intelligent the composer is, who knows how to measure
intelligence and so on.
in many ways i think that part of mark's question
is really not important for the same reason:
who cares how "creative" the composer is, who knows how to measure
creativity etc. what the overwhelming value and interest of
music to me is how aurally stimulating it is. i don't identify
strongly with the people who make the music and so i don't really
need to confirm my love for what they write by thinking about
how smart they are and how complicated and intricate their
compositions are: simple!
a similar thread came up on the breaks list once in reference to
wagon christ's throbbing pouch (which i believe to be a fantastic
work - totally hypnotic and a joy to listen to). he complained that
any old fool with a drum machine could make that album. ( ... but
of course you have to have some great programming skills to write
squarepushers stuff) i guess luke fought for his drum programming
skill credentials with drum and bass for papa (which some people
have complained is nothing but fancy drum programming!!!!) but in my
mind the whole debate is absurd. to some extent the development of
a musical style is about the development of skills using the instrument
but good music is not about fancy footwork.
now, that said, you can engage in a discussion about the intellectual
value of a piece of music apart from it's musical interest. in this
activity i see a lot of parallels with modern art and modern classical
music. anybody can paint a red square really big, or record 3 minutes
of silence, so the skill of composition is not really important. and
once someone has drawn a big red square, it doesn't mean that
no-one can draw a lot of smaller red squares and call it art. (the analogy,
for those who think i am crazy, is to the use of the sample: a red square)
the prize goes to who thought of making the
particular composition as a whole. the same is true with dj cam: he
thought of bringing the elements he chose together in the way he did.
one great piece on no.10 the 2x12" from shadow has the n.o.w. piece
cut into the middle of another rhythm. i think that's great because
of the indescribable joy that i get hearing the transition between
what are two well used samples. if the composition brings to life
somthing the sampled piece didn't touch, or whatever, the composer
has done his job, and deserves credit for his *creation*.
ramble, ramble.
so, without touching all the bases, i'll sign off. i can always clarify or
extend if anyone continues the dialogue.
bijan