Re: Headz2

feesh@asu.edu
Sun, 06 Jul 1997 12:14:55 -0700 (MST)


SO the question, for clarity's sake, is whether or not a "simple" beat
with a "basic" groove and not a lot of fancy-schmancy programming is
equal in credibility. Well, I most definitley agree with what bijan is
saying here. THere is a great art in keeping it simple. (All right I'm
going to go into some non-AJ examples here...)
there's a violinist named Tony Conrad. He recently played a show where he
played one song, which consisted of his more or less playing the same
note for twenty minutes. Simple. EXTREMELY simple. Yet he is critically
acclaimed by many as avant garde, at the forefront of musical innovation.
WHile one note for twenty minutes sounds rather boring, the art of it
comes in how he subtly tweaks it for half a second here, half a second
there. It doesn't make you jump up and dance, but it still gets a
reaction out of you.
Anyone here ever heard of a dub porject called HIM? Its one guy, Doug
Scharin, and its pretty damn good. Lots and lots of percussion. The guy
is an amazing drummer. Before he was in Him, though, he was the drummer
for the slowest, slowest, excruciatingly SLOWEST rock band I've ever
heard, Codiene (I know, I know, Im falling way off the AJ track, sorry).
Why would a guy as good as him be in a band where he barley touches
anything? "THe restraint, man. The restraint. THere's nothing like it."
Lastly, (and now we're getting WAY WAY WAY off of AJ) anyone here heard
of Ernest hemingway? the man went down in history as a literary legend
because his sentences were so goddamned short, he was redundant, and he
made it a point to keep his vocabulary as simple as possible! Can you say
that he is not as good as someone like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who can
write one sentence for two pages? not at all, becaus there's something to
be said for minimalism. And I think its been said plenty.
scott
The notes you dont play are just as important as those you do.

On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, aargh! wrote:

> At 02:49 AM 7/6/97 -0400, bijan@physics.att.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >i hesitate to get involved in what could be the best slanging match
> >on the list since datboy and loki (are you guys still around?) got
> >in the ring *but* since i have had long thoughts about this before
> >i will ignore the spectator in me (yes, there is one to ignore).
>
> Yep I'm still around. I changed my name and lurk a bit more than I did
> ... I didn't consider "datboy" having all those supposed racist
> connotations that I kept getting accused of all the time I had it. Best
> slanging match? Hee hee .... wow ... to me I was just calling a guy, you
> know? Didn't think it'd actually make an impression ..... :)
>
> >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.
>
> It goes deeper than that as far as I can see .... it has to do with a
> person's willingness to accept something truly different when they listen
> to a new style. Most of the people that I hear putting down any groove
> music think that if it doesn't have a melody and a chord progression, it's
> not music .... that to me is completely absurd. The stuff we listen to has
> other focus than just a head or a solo in the traditional sense ... so when
> I hear something that I have a strong reaction to, I listen to it until I
> know how it goes, and then I make up my mind whether I like it. One record
> in 20 years has failed the test ... Yes's "Talk".
>
> >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!
>
> Yeh .. Headz 2 is always going to be a great record because of the two
> versions of "The Real Thing" .... I put that and Breakbeat Science 2 on two
> 4 hr DATs and that way I can groove all day long ....
>
>
> >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.
>
> Actually I laugh when I hear this argument, because I think "huh? Any old
> fool with a drum machine? *You* didn't make that album, muh-fuh!"
>
> >( ... but
> >of course you have to have some great programming skills to write
> >squarepushers stuff)
>
> Have you heard this Alroy Road Tracks thing that is Squarepusher in
> disguise? Spy 002 .... This was the first time I'd ever heard him, having
> missed the first album ... heard it the day before Hard Normal Daddy came
> out .... You talk about something tweaking my mind ..... I couldn't figure
> out what speed to play the record at .....
>
>
> >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*.
>
> I don't know about that ... all the guy has to do is put a frame around it
> and after that it's a matter of taste. Some people would be happy to check
> out that red square.
>
> I don't know how else to describe why I like what I do ... I mean ..
> "Pocket Calculator" by Kraftwerk has to be one of my favorite songs EVER,
> but it's So Stupid .... so cartoonish .... and so of-its-time. I listen to
> a lot of cheesy stuff on the offchance that something I really like will
> happen and I'll stumble over something I like .... these are two really
> crass examples but I really like Jocelyn Rodriguez's "Do You Miss Me" and
> Crush's "Jellyhead." The musician in me thinks, these songs are
> ultra-cheese, this is nothing special, someone programmed a verse and a
> chorus and sang over it. Big deal. The listener/absorber/fan in me likes
> them a LOT because they're catchy, very singalongable, and totally
> brainless ... I can do anything while listening to these songs and still
> absorb them ....
>
> I equate my musical taste with my culinary taste. When you sit down to eat
> you don't have chicken vindaloo, chicken vindaloo, chicken vindaloo,
> chicken vindaloo, chicken vindaloo, chicken vindaloo, and chicken vindaloo.
> That would be incredibly heavy. You have a salad here, a stalk of
> vegetable there, a roll here, a salad there, etc. etc. etc. And I really
> like jello music as much as I like the caviar music, you know? But I
> wouldn't want either all the time ....
>
>
> c'ya
>
>
>