Re: [microsound] Re: 4/4's for neanderthals

[scissors for sparrow <transmit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i can't remember if it was adorno who said that pop music's aim was to be 
predictable and only different enough from other instances to be a 
marketable commodity.  i believe this was in 'the culture industries', 
actually -- he and horkheimer go on to suggest that pop music is so 
edifying to the listener because they feel they can relate, comprehend and 
therefore participate in the music due to their ability to pre-empt it 
(phrasing, tune, even words).  this is precisely why lots of people hate 
it, but it's nonetheless a pertinent point which you'll have to forgive my 
poor articulation of.

i think you could apply the same idea to most kinds of music which involve 
repetition or any kind of fixed syntax, and this in turn reduces your taste 
to an issue of (sub)cultural capital.  this is probably only exempt in 
terms of things which are discontinuous or particularly unpredictable, 
alien to any concept of 'groove' at all.  i think it's probably also quite 
difficult to listen to music that is constantly and radically changing 
sounds/volumes/tonalities for the same reason - difficulty in attaching the 
music to one's thoughts.

of course, there surely will be plenty of you who are capable of enjoying 
such things, and so on and so forth, but i thought i'd try to comment on 
the 'rule' perhaps rather than the exceptions.


too many mails at once,
jon.



http://home.pacific.net.au/~transmit