Re: [microsound] microsound as pop music

[ian stewart <artsonics@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Also, I can't think of any pop music that tends to
justify itself intellectually - as a matter of fact,
it tends to be anti-intellectual.  Sure, it might be
smartly written, but you don't see liner notes go on
and on with extra-musical justifications with any
record that sells over 20,000 copies, much less2,000,000.
throwin' 2 cents - Jethro <

Not sure this is true- e.g. the Quadrophenia liner notes are full of 
extra-musical justifications. You'll also have no trouble finding academic 
papers analysing, say, Brian Wilson harmonic structures or other 
inter-musical meaning in pop music. The same is true with most of what is 
considered "academic music"- inter-musical justifications of most (there are 
exceptions) Classical/Romantic music have come after-the-fact, not from the 
composers themselves. I'm not so interested in the pop/academic distinction- 
microsound is strictly neither, it is what it is. I do find the idea of 
extra-musical legitimation interesting- my personal feeling is that 
extra-musical legitimation is mainly a 20th century phenomenon. I don't know 
all that many composers working now who feel compelled to justify their work 
by drawing on Zodiac tables or geothermal formulas (etc), and I've always 
found these types of explanations to be more obfuscatory than useful. 
Shouldn't music be received on its own criteria? More on extra-musical 
justifications later if anyone wants to take up the subject. Best,

ian



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com