EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 52, Issue 08 This issue's topics: Composition etc. (3 messages) Free publicity (2 messages) Fwd: Yanni's music (22 messages) Give us a break!! Here we go again... Never Saw the Original "Yawni" Post Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no real musical content) (4 messages) The light dawns-- I think.... (2 messages) Why so bitter? (2 messages) YAAGHNIII YANINANI Yanni other questions? Yanni's Music YES, MONEY (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:54:53 -0500 From: cs461139 Subject: Composition etc. Pardon me if I butt into your fascinating discussion. Almost everybody here (granted I did not read all the messages) treats the listener as an active participant in the compositional process. I don't know about that. I don't think of listener's point of view until a piece is almost finished. I almost never think of my audience's musical or cultural background. I don't try to meet or 'not meet' listener's expectations (at least, not consiously). And why should I? I don't think any of the musicians I admire (well, Zappa, Stravinsky, Bruford, Angus Young - you name it) ever took _my_ point of view as a listener into consideration. I think what they did was creating things 'universal' in their power, things that were supposed to work on any listener, no matter what (it did not always work, of course, but no approach guarantees 100% success, now does it?). What came out were pieces of music completely independent and self-contained (most of the time), not tied to the composer's pesonality/emotions, not tied to a specific point in musical history, and open for innumerable interpretations. Isn't that the main idea of creating something? I don't know, the whole thing looks very much like class-derivation in OOP, if you know what I mean. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:55:50 EDT From: Brian Good Subject: Re: Composition etc. Zak writes: > Pardon me if I butt into your fascinating discussion. Almost > everybody here (granted I did not read all the messages) treats the listener > as an active participant in the compositional process. I don't know > about that. I don't think of listener's point of view until a piece is > almost finished. I almost never think of my audience's musical or cultural > background. Unless you're writing for a culture other than the one you grew up in, you don't have to--you're *steeped* in it. By using common practice, you're automatically making assumptions about your audience's expectations, at least in some average sense. If you're writing tonally, you're making a *lot* of assumptions about the common musical language you share with your audience. >I don't try to meet or 'not meet' listener's expectations > (at least, not consiously). And why should I? I don't think any of the > musicians I admire (well, Zappa, Stravinsky, Bruford, Angus Young - you name > it) ever took _my_ point of view as a listener into consideration. I think > what they did was creating things 'universal' in their power, things that > were supposed to work on any listener, no matter what (it did not always > work, of course, but no approach guarantees 100% success, now does it?). I think your point of view here is perhaps limited. Do you think a listener from a non-western culture is going to hear the same things in the above composers' stuff that you hear? I've spent a bit of time discussing this with an Indian friend who's an accomplished amateur musician. I quickly came to the conclusion that I was missing an enormous amount of the content of the music he played for me, simply because I had a much different musical background. I'm not claiming I didn't get *anything* from it--just that I missed a lot. I'm not sure it would even be possible to write "universal" music. brian good ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:36:13 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Composition etc. Brian writes: > Do you think a listener from a non-western culture is going to hear the > same things in the above composers' stuff that you hear? Well, I don't have to *think* - I *am* a listener from a non-western culture! And it was not that long ago (about 25 years) that my parents recorded Armstrong's improvisations on X-Ray film from the Voice of America broadcasts. And it was not so long ago (about 3 years ago) when the railway service in major Russian cities was overloaded because Pink Floyd came to Moscow. And it was just last year that AC/DC played a free concert in Moscow for approx. 750,000 people. And take my word for it, neither of those people ever heard a note by Robert Johnson or Hank Williams Sr., almost nobody understood a word of English, and almost everybody had better things to do then to suffer over the produces of the young American culture. People wanted to hear the music. I used to know many, many hardcore Zappa fans in different cities of Ukraine, who collected his endless albums and endlessly discussed his music - neither of them knew much about American culture, or 'counterculture' for that matter. And we're not talking The Beatles here - this is some complicated stuff! I don't know much about Indian classical music (I seem to enjoy it), but I remember a video recording of The Police live in Bombay. The people in the audience were extatic. I doubt any of them had much exposure to western music before, esp. to something like the white punk reggae of The Police. I also doubt it was the haircuts 8-) I witnessed and heard of many cases when people of a certain culture appreciated the art of a different culture, just because it was strong enough to break through the perception barriers (the Bible would be a nice example :-) If everything was in references, traditions, logical assumptions and junk like that, we would be extremely bored of music by now. And who's writing tonally? Is blues tonal? Is jazz? Are Robert Plant's vocals tonal? > I'm not sure it would even be possible to write "universal" music. You should try it. You'll be surprised. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 15:43:43 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Free publicity Well it looks like the war is over, and Yanni has clearly won - he got a lot of free publicity, didn't he? I would like to thank everybody who got involved and apologize to everybody who got offended. I promise I'll behave from now on. You electronic musicians are one clever bunch of guys. Right on. ************************************************** * Zak May, cs461139@umbc.edu * * "V glubokoj zhoppe - nasha konechnaja tsel'." * * Ku-ku, 1991 * ************************************************** All opinions stated above are not mine, but of my employer, whoever that might be at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:09:00 EDT From: rg8 Subject: Re: Free publicity In-Reply-To: <9305131945.AA27796@umailsrv0.UMD.EDU> >You electronic musicians are one clever bunch of guys. Oh yes. That's why we need the net to get advice on how to use our equipment . >Right on. Yes, carry on. Bob Gibson rg8@umail.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 10:59:26 CDT From: John Eichenseer Subject: Fwd: Yanni's music Cough, gag, splut, but anyways... I am pretty interested in the phenomena of this sort of music, because it contains much information about the tastes of The Public. I claim NO affiliation with this "Public". -jhno ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- HOLLYWOOD (UPI) -- Yanni is a musical phenomenon with gold and platinum records piling up like hotcakes. But the music isn't rap. It's not rock 'n' roll either. Yanni isn't even a group. He's a guy. Yeah, well if he's so hot, what does Yanni sing? He does't sing. Yanni is a composer-instrumentalist, a pianist who doesn't sing a note. Neither does Yanni espouse social protest or rail against the establishment. Who ever heard of a '90s music man without a political agenda? Perhaps that is why Yanni's concerts sell out and his albums sell in the millions. He visited Hollywood the other day, his long dark hair falling below his shoulders, to promote his latest album, ``In My Time,'' following such certified hits as ``Dare To Dream,'' ``Reflections Of Passion'' and ``Celebration Of Life.'' Maybe it's his symphonic-style, lilting melodies and such musical basics as harmony and counterpoint that trigger responses in listeners of all ages everywhere. It's unnecessary to strain to hear drug- or crime-related lyrics in dissonant, repetitive chants. A Greek-born naturalized American, Yanni says there is room for all sorts of music, but until now contemporary instrumentalists had all but disappeared from the face of the Earth. ``I came to the United States when I was 18 to study psychology at the University of Minnesota,'' Yanni said. ``But I've written and played music all my life. After graduation, I decided to be a musician. ``I wasn't suited to be a psychologist because it requires more listening than anything else. Essentially I'm a creative man, so the choice not to attend graduate school was easy for me.'' Yanni, who usually records and tours with seven or eight musicians, has scheduled a 40-city concert tour -- beginning June 8 with six performances at New York's Gershwin Theater -- playing with symphony orchestras. ``It is a great thrill to hear your own compositions being played by 50 top-flight musicians,'' he said. ``An orchestra that size is like a piece of marble to a sculptor. ``While I usually perform with my small group, the sound is altogether different with a symphony. Each instrument is created to make a different kind of sound -- sounds that can't be duplicated by synthesizers or other electronic equipment. ``It occurred to me to combine the many sounds generated by electronics with that of a symphony, which broadens the sound picture tremendously. ``When I write a piece of music I examine the emotions I want to express and then decide what instruments are appropriate. It doesn't matter to me what other people think of my combinations of sound.'' Yanni says he is blessed with perfect pitch, allowing him to hear a new melody in his head with individual instrumental harmony. ``I can hear variations in pitch so well I can tune an oscillator,'' he said. ``But when I listen to Beethoven, Mozart or Tchaikovsky, they become like an open book. I don't just hear the pitch, I hear and comprehend individual notes. ``I don't sing because I don't like my voice. But there is another reason: music speaks. You don't really need to be told what is happening. Beethoven communicated very well emotionally without words. ``Listening to the music, you can feel a human being without caring about his politics or knowing anything about him. You can hear his excitement, his pain, his passion, his soul. People tell me they pick that up from my stuff, which is a wonderful thing to hear. ``It pleases me when people say my music helps them be creative.'' Yanni's new album, ``In My Time,'' is more consistantly melodic and tranquil than his past recordings, without becoming elevator music. He notes that much of today's popular music, especially among young performers, is composed solely of rhythm and a repetitive beat without theme or melody. ``That's because it is very difficult to write a great melody consisting of six or seven notes and variations,'' he said. ``Few people are able do that. ``You can evoke an emotional reaction with a lyric, so it isn't necessary to have a good melody. But you can do the same thing with a poem. ``A pop song today would die without lyrics. But the lyrics can't stand alone. So I think most work today is not poetry or music, but something in between.'' ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:26:17 CDT From: Mark Borcherding Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Yanni is Yanni. Yanni makes music. Some people (maybe lots) buy Yanni music. It is up to people to determine what they want to listen to. I would question how and why people listen to what they do. Pack mentality? Poor listening skills? Closed mind? Its hard to make music if no-one listens. Mark. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:57:42 CDT From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music It seems silly that this list should now be getting more and more into the kind of conversational battles that RMI and RMMS (and of course many other newsgroups) are famous for. The simple clash of tastes. My two cents on the GOOD/BAD music, is that it is a purely personal decision. The way people seem to always use it is in the manner of a certain artist fitting into a certain genre, either by declaring to be of the genre or to be placed there. I feel that only people that are usually apt to liking music from that imposed genre can provide a useful description of goodness and badness, ie whether or not the material fits what it claims to fit. Otherwise, being labeled as bad may just be being thrown away since one belongs to a genre the labeller does not like. Then again, where does a genre start and where does it end? Just look at the constant feud of people who like classical industrial (Einstuerzende Neubauten, Throbbing Gristle, etc.) and dance industrial (NIN, Ministry, etc) of what is good and what is bad, just becuase they both feel that the genre industrial is determined by their taste. Zak writes: >Of course you do! Give a violin to a monkey - you will definitely hate >the results. Same happens when you give K2000 to an idiot (no offense, >Yanni, just to prove a point). I have frequently listened to music that sounds a whole lot like a monkey with some sort of music instrument (and i was convinced that it must in fact have been an idiot with a K200) and i thought "now here is music that is objectively bad, how could anyone not agree?". Then i met some people that not only endured that music but thought it to be some of the most brilliant expression in music, they had yet heard. IMHO, for any music, there will be someone who finds it deeply moving and an essential expression of the soul, and by that virtue alone, i believe the music is good, as it has reached someone and given something to someone. -AFC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 09:30:57 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music "Zak" writes: >pretty impressive article. I don't think it has anything to do with >the public's taste though. Wouldn't you agree it's all in the hair and >name? I mean _nobody_ can possibly _like_ the crap that Yanni or >Kenny G for that matter produce! > >Nobody _likes_ bad music no matter how dumb and/or inexperienced the >listener might be. But when they want to buy an album or go to a >quiet concert, they pick somebody with hair... I think the story is >this simple. I think this is a ludicrous oversimplification. I may not rush out to the store to buy Yanni's albums every time he releases one. I may not even OWN any Yanni albums (not quite true; I have a CD of his first one, a basement session from 1980 long before anyone outside of the Philly scene knew who he was). But I will admit that he has written some songs that I like, and there is no question that he has built up a huge following without the benefit of a big media blitz (that came later, AFTER Private Music had a hit or two from him). Yanni is being spat on because he's popular. That does not make him a completely worthless musician; I can name at LEAST six records by artists no one on this List would slam out of hand that contain fewer real musical ideas and less competent technique and execution than Yanni's worst. When you get on a mailing list like this and state that NOBODY could POSSIBLY like such-and-such, all you succeed in doing is aggravating those who do. Closemindedness serves no one. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 11:14:59 PDT From: Jesse Kanner Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music > 3. Once again, I agree that music is very subjective. But I hope you > agree that _bad_ music is objective. We all can tell when something is > fake, can't we? (I am generalizing again, I'd better stop). > > Respectfully, > > Zak. > This raises an interesting question. I guess I'm not sure what "bad" music really is. I do not say this to Poo-Poo the notion of seaking out bad music. I side partially here with ZAK. Since everybody seems hung up on the idea of BAD / GOOD muisc,this notion must have some popular validity. This is to say the people need to know what is "good" and what is "bad". Obviously any thinking person (especially a computer musician) will tell you there _is_ no 'objectively' bad music. I use objective in the psedo scientific connotation. There is bad by concensus. I think this is what ZAK\ was talking about. Ithink this whole quesiotn revolves around whether a music is effective and authentic. If i amn confronted with a music I don't like or get, I immediately look inside _myself_ and try to figure out what I'm missing. Like Pearl Jam for instance. I hang out with a producer that has been following these guys since the Mother Lovebone days. But I never really "got" the PJ concept until I saw them on MTV. And now I can say that not only do I understand the attraction, I share it. My friend had his bonding experience long ago withthose guys in Seattle. I didn't until I had the MTV experience. It is interesting to note that neither of us bonded with the record. As any post Stockhausian / Duchampian will tell you, all sound is a found object. If everyone here is hip enough work in this medium, let us at least listen as creatively as we compose. Gertrude Stein said that all Reading and Writing must be an act of discovery. -Jesse buzz@netcom.com -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 12:01:15 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music >Hi Mike, Hi yerself. >I love the controversy generated by my simple remark! But I don't think >you got my point right (my problem of course, English is not my fuete). "not my FORTE," kid. |-> I should have realized that there may have been a mistranslation in one or two spots. However: >I have nothing against Yanni or his music. My statement was this: > >1. Popularity of an artist is not necessarily directly connected >to the public _liking_ his/her work. Perhaps not NECESSARILY, but the public has a way of getting what it wants. Nobody in the business would have bet a half-eaten hot dog on Tone-Loc, and everyone was CONVINCED that Hipsway was going to be the next Duran Duran. >2. I don't see any other quazi-New Age musicians selling millions of >albums. What's so different about Yanni that makes him popular? You >really don't think there is something special about his _music_, do you? You don't? I can see a bunch of them doing so, from Liz Story and George Winston to William Aura, Ray Lynch, and my personal hero Richard Burmer. I will agree that Yanni has a bit more mainstream exposure than the rest, but it's not because of marketing, it's because he's married to a very VERY famous American soap opera actress. Admittedly this has nothing to do with his music, but the community's success is not entirely packaging. >3. Once again, I agree that music is very subjective. But I hope you >agree that _bad_ music is objective. We all can tell when something is >fake, can't we? (I am generalizing again, I'd better stop). Yes, you had damned well BETTER. I do NOT agree that "bad" music is objective. Not at all! "Bad" by whose definition? Yours? Mine? YANNI'S?! There is no objective rule for bad art. Each of us has his own rules. Merchandising and packaging aside, if it touches you, it's good. And Yanni manages, every once in a while, to touch me. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 12:14:19 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Hi John, pretty impressive article. I don't think it has anything to do with the public's taste though. Wouldn't you agree it's all in the hair and name? I mean _nobody_ can possibly _like_ the crap that Yanni or Kenny G for that matter produce! Nobody _likes_ bad music no matter how dumb and/or inexperienced the listener might be. But when they want to buy an album or go to a quiet concert, they pick somebody with hair... I think the story is this simple. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 12:15:36 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music >Hi Mark, > >don't feel so bad - I'll listen to your music. I would reverse your question >though: > >Why make music if no-one listens? Valid question. Yanni does it, according to recent interviews, because he has to. I do it because I have to. I suspect that a lot of us do it because we have to. I knew Yanni when he was still going by John Yanni Christopher (he went back to his full Greek name sometime after getting famous) and he had a tiny, loyal following in the Philly indie-synth market. He has always said, even then, that he plays because the alternative, to him, is death. (I might mention that among the six albums I could name by supposedly unimpeachable "great synthesists" that I would prefer Yanni to, I would include the last LP by his biggest local competitors at the time, the Nightcrawlers.) >If you're enjoing the process or do it for self-expression, you wouldn't care >if nobody listens, would you? If you're not enjoing it and it does not pay, >why do it at all? Precisely! The primary reason I refuse to become involved in the music industry, no matter how much I may want to, is that I refuse to make myself rely on my music to feed and clothe my family. I'll work shit jobs to pay the rent, but my music must be free to express itself without worrying about whether or not anyone will buy it. Otherwise I may as well just slit my throat and be done with it. There is a great book of poems by a guy named Don Marquis called "archy and mehitabel". archy (no caps) is a poet who was reincarnated as a cockroach; he throws himself bodily onto the keys of an old typewriter, one painful letter at a time, and agonizingly drags back the carriage return, to create his art. In the first line of the first poem he writes, archy says: expression is the need of my soul And it is. If the creative person cannot create, he DIES. Plain and simple. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:45:25 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Hi Mike, I love the controversy generated by my simple remark! But I don't think you got my point right (my problem of course, English is not my fuete). I have nothing against Yanni or his music. My statement was this: 1. Popularity of an artist is not necessarily directly connected to the public _liking_ his/her work. 2. I don't see any other quazi-New Age musicians selling millions of albums. What's so different about Yanni that makes him popular? You really don't think there is something special about his _music_, do you? 3. Once again, I agree that music is very subjective. But I hope you agree that _bad_ music is objective. We all can tell when something is fake, can't we? (I am generalizing again, I'd better stop). Respectfully, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:50:39 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music >Dear Mr. Metlay, :-) > >I wish I could be as cool-sounding as you are :-) No, you don't. Trust me, it's better to have friends. ;-> >But I can still appeal to the facts. > >Let's try. Okay. (Though I should point out that your arguments have so far not included a single fact, and are entirely made up of your opinions.) >> Nobody in the business would have bet a half-eaten hot dog on >> Tone-Loc, and everyone was CONVINCED that Hipsway was going to be >> the next Duran Duran. > >Oh, please - the first time I saw a fat black guy hoarsely mumbling >semi-obscene lyrics over Van Halen's semi-obscene samples, it was clear >to _me_ at least, that it was going to be a huge hit. I don't know which >'business' you're talking about. American record industry would not be >a good example of a working self-educating mechanism - it was never famous >for clairvoyance. Ah, but you've just proven my point for me! By the time you SAW that "fat black guy," he was already filthy rich, his self-produced basement rap record having been forced (literally!) into hit status by a strong following of radio listeners who parleyed one radio station's experimental airplay of "Wild Thang" into a phenomenon. The music industry IS NOT very clairvoyant, which is why it's unfair to state as a blanket generalization that anyone who does well in the industry did so because they were MEANT to. >Yeah, you're right. I just never saw Pat O'Hearn on Entertainment Tonight. This is true. |-> But you don't need Pat O'Hearn on ET; they HAVE an electronic musician in residence. John Tesh, the blonde talking head who anchors the show, has six or seven albums out. (Not bad stuff, if you like corporate jazz with a lot of Synclavier. I wouldn't term it "electronic" per se, though.) >> < some stuff deleted> I do NOT agree that "bad" music is objective. >> Not at all! "Bad" by whose definition? Yours? Mine? YANNI'S?! > >Of course you do! Give a violin to a monkey - you will definitely hate >the results. Same happens when you give K2000 to an idiot (no offense, >Yanni, just to prove a point). How do you KNOW I'll hate the results? You DON'T! There's a famous story about a chimp who painted for fun, and whose work was sold pseudonymously by his keepers to an art gallery which displayed them to great critical acclaim. People liked what he did. And the same goes for music-- you can NOT just STATE that someone "is an idiot" and that people will "definitely hate" the results of his being handed a K2000. How would you feel if someone said that about you? That you were an idiot, and that giving you a musical instrument would produce something everyone would definitely hate, just because their view of "good" and "bad" music didn't mesh with yours? "One man's meat is another man's poison." We have room in our heads for everything in the universe-- calling something "bad" walls off a part of our heads so we can't use it, and forcing others to do the same is cruel. THINK before you wield such a broad brush to paint other people with! And I should note that I agree with Arne's assessment that trying to agree on "good" and "bad" is a pointless waste of time, and that I would prefer not continuing this discussion much further. You seem to believe, despite your smileys and notations of "growing respect", that there exists some absolute means of determining whether something is "good" or "bad," and I DON'T. We're not going to convince each other, so why waste people's time trying? -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:58:29 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music >Hey, you're getting heavy. I like that stuff about slitting your throat. A LOT of people on EMUSIC-L would like me to slit my throat. >I've heard this before. I still can't understand it (or, for that matter, >relate to it). I'm sorry. That means that I would have a hard time understanding you, and that saddens me. I have only known one musician in my life who ever tried to walk away from making music; he lasted three years, and is now happily composing away again. >I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to be uncompromising. Was >Mozart uncompromizing? Was Wagner? Were The Beatles? :-) I never said it was necessary to be uncompromising. Some people still derive joy from their art, even if they do compromise on how it's done; others don't see playing to the tastes of the public as BEING a compromise-- they do popular music because they LIKE it. >I make music because I can (and quite succesfully, I might add). And I'm >happy about this fact. I don't think it's healthy to dedicate your >life to something just because it gives you an ability to self-express. > >I would love it for you to prove me wrong though. I don't think I can. The only person who can prove anything of value to you is you yourself. Here's a suggestion: Stop making music for a week, or a month. Just STOP. Then see what kind of shape you're in. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:28:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Excuse me if I jump in here, but: >1. Popularity of an artist is not necessarily directly connected >to the public _liking_ his/her work. I'd argue to the contray. Are you saying the public doesn't know what it likes ? >2. I don't see any other quazi-New Age musicians selling millions of >albums. What's so different about Yanni that makes him popular? You >really don't think there is something special about his _music_, do you? What about Patrick O'hearn, Suzanne Ciani, (electronic) George Winston, Shadowfax, and a host of other musicians on Windham Hill, Private Music, etc. labels ? It's been more than ten years since Windham Hill introduced this new age style and their still in business. If new age wasall crap as I heard so often, I'd expect it to have died a death similiar to disco. >3. Once again, I agree that music is very subjective. But I hope you >agree that _bad_ music is objective. We all can tell when something is >fake, can't we? (I am generalizing again, I'd better stop). "Bad music" is less subjective but not objective, quantifiable, is perhaps a better term. The method you use to determine whether music is good or bad is still subjective to your background, education, and parameters you intend to qualify. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:37:57 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music > I side partially here with ZAK. Since > everybody seems hung up on the idea of BAD / GOOD muisc,this notion > must have some popular validity. This is to say the people need to > know what is "good" and what is "bad". Obviously any thinking person > (especially a computer musician) will tell you there _is_ no > 'objectively' bad music. I use objective in the psedo scientific > connotation. There is bad by concensus. I think this is what ZAK\ > was talking about. Ithink this whole quesiotn revolves around whether > a music is effective and authentic. Wow! Thanks for the support, Jesse. I like you terms: 'effective' and 'authentic'. Now we just have to define them. Let me ask you several questions: 1. Can we define 'authentic' music as non-fake, i.e. sincere, uninhibited, honest, uncompromising, etc. or at least some of the above? 2. Does selling a million albums qualify for producing 'effective' music? 3. If not, what does? 4. When you talk about professional consensus, do you include Yanni and Co. in the profession? (Tricky question :-) Thanks, Zak. > If i amn confronted with a music I don't like or get, I immediately > look inside _myself_ and try to figure out what I'm missing. Like > Pearl Jam for instance. I hang out with a producer that has been > following these guys since the Mother Lovebone days. But I never > really "got" the PJ concept until I saw them on MTV. And now I can > say that not only do I understand the attraction, I share it. > My friend had his bonding experience long ago withthose guys in > Seattle. I didn't until I had the MTV experience. It is interesting > to note that neither of us bonded with the record. > > As any post Stockhausian / Duchampian will tell you, all sound > is a found object. If everyone here is hip enough work in this > medium, let us at least listen as creatively as we compose. > > Gertrude Stein said that all Reading and Writing must be an act > of discovery. > > -Jesse > buzz@netcom.com > > > > -- > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:45:57 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music > It is up to people to determine what they want to listen to. I would question > how and why people listen to what they do. Pack mentality? Poor listening > skills? Closed mind? > > Its hard to make music if no-one listens. > > Mark. > Hi Mark, don't feel so bad - I'll listen to your music. I would reverse your question though: Why make music if no-one listens? If you're enjoing the process or do it for self-expression, you wouldn't care if nobody listens, would you? If you're not enjoing it and it does not pay, why do it at all? (Please don't take anything personally - I'm being very abstract here, I've never heard your music). Thanks, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:47:24 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music >> And I should note that I agree with Arne's assessment that trying to >> agree on "good" and "bad" is a pointless waste of time, and that I >> would prefer not continuing this discussion much further. You seem to >> believe, despite your smileys and notations of "growing respect", that >> there exists some absolute means of determining whether something is >> "good" or "bad," and I DON'T. We're not going to convince each other, >> so why waste people's time trying? >> > >Ah, whatever. If you think you know better - fine. I just thought it >would be a good idea to pass along some REAL information to somebody who >seems capable of using it for something good. I never wanted to offend >anybody, that's for sure. And I did not need to _prove-a-point_ - I'm >secure enough with my views. Once again you try to pass off your own opinions as 'REAL information', and... oh, never mind. >Anyway, what's the difference between EPS and EPS 16+? That question belongs on SYNTH-L. Take it over there and I'll be glad to answer you. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:09:19 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Hi Bob, in your letter you said: > > Excuse me if I jump in here, but: > > >1. Popularity of an artist is not necessarily directly connected > >to the public _liking_ his/her work. > > I'd argue to the contray. Are you saying the public doesn't know what it > likes ? What I meant was this: if somebody buys an album or goes to a show, it's not necessarily because they like the _music_. It could be because they like the person, the hype, the hair, the stage production, etc. In pop-music that is the case most of the time (Quincy Jones' albums don't oversell M.Jackson's, although the music is almost the same, for example). The simplified easy-liste ning New Age we are talking about is a part of pop-music now, isn't it? > > >2. I don't see any other quazi-New Age musicians selling millions of > >albums. What's so different about Yanni that makes him popular? You > >really don't think there is something special about his _music_, do you? > > What about Patrick O'hearn, Suzanne Ciani, (electronic) George Winston, > Shadowfax, and a host of other musicians on Windham Hill, Private Music, etc. > labels ? It's been more than ten years since Windham Hill introduced this new > age style and their still in business. If new age wasall crap as I heard so > often, I'd expect it to have died a death similiar to disco. I never said New Age was crap - nothing would be more stupid then rejecting the whole style of music. I've been listening to New Age way before it was called New Age (Brian Eno's ambient albums, for example). The artists you named don't really prove a point - Shadowfax does not sell that many records. I was talking about making Billboard's pop charts. Thanks, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:26:24 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Dear Mr. Metlay, :-) I wish I could be as cool-sounding as you are :-) But I can still appeal to the facts. Let's try. > Nobody in the business would have bet a half-eaten hot dog on > Tone-Loc, and everyone was CONVINCED that Hipsway was going to be > the next Duran Duran. > Oh, please - the first time I saw a fat black guy hoarsely mumbling semi-obscene lyrics over Van Halen's semi-obscene samples, it was clear to _me_ at least, that it was going to be a huge hit. I don't know which 'business' you're talking about. American record industry would not be a good example of a working self-educating mechanism - it was never famous for clairvoyance. > >2. I don't see any other quazi-New Age musicians selling millions of > >albums. What's so different about Yanni that makes him popular? You > >really don't think there is something special about his _music_, do you? > > You don't? I can see a bunch of them doing so, from Liz Story and George > Winston to William Aura, Ray Lynch, and my personal hero Richard Burmer. > I will agree that Yanni has a bit more mainstream exposure than the rest, > but it's not because of marketing, it's because he's married to a very > VERY famous American soap opera actress. Admittedly this has nothing to > do with his music, but the community's success is not entirely packaging. > Yeah, you're right. I just never saw Pat O'Hearn on Entertainment Tonight. > < some stuff deleted> I do NOT agree that "bad" music is objective. > Not at all! "Bad" by whose definition? Yours? Mine? YANNI'S?! Of course you do! Give a violin to a monkey - you will definitely hate the results. Same happens when you give K2000 to an idiot (no offense, Yanni, just to prove a point). With growing respect, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:40:24 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Hey, you're getting heavy. I like that stuff about slitting your throat. I've heard this before. I still can't understand it (or, for that matter, relate to it). I mean, I used to know personally people who died because they could not function as non-musicians, and the society did not want them to be musicians. But that society is no more (and believe me, that was some shitty society...) So it looks like they won in the end. I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to be uncompromising. Was Mozart uncompromizing? Was Wagner? Were The Beatles? :-) I make music because I can (and quite succesfully, I might add). And I'm happy about this fact. I don't think it's healthy to dedicate your life to something just because it gives you an ability to self-express. I would love it for you to prove me wrong though. Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:58:17 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Arne wrote: > It seems silly that this list should now be getting more and more into the > kind of conversational battles that RMI and RMMS (and of course many other > newsgroups) are famous for. The simple clash of tastes. I don't remember ever stating my tastes in this dispute, nor do I remember anybody saying what they liked/disliked. Everybody was talking about _tolerance_. The general idea was: 'Screw Yanni and the general public, we can't change much anyway'. I definitely disagree with this statement. My experience tells me that musicians dictate the tastes of the general public and not the other way around. I don't think anybody will disagree with that. Those dumb assholes were not born that way - we made them that way, by tolerating bad music and/or bad musicianship. If you want to continue that beautiful tradition - be my guests. And please don't make me use words like 'spirituality' and 'creativity' to explain the obvious differences between GOOD and BAD music, 'cause then we would really get nasty. Anre continues: > I have frequently listened to music that sounds a whole lot like a monkey > with some sort of music instrument (and i was convinced that it must in fact > have been an idiot with a K200) and i thought "now here is music that is > objectively bad, how could anyone not agree?". > Then i met some people that not only endured that music but thought it to be > some of the most brilliant expression in music, they had yet heard. > > IMHO, for any music, there will be someone who finds it deeply moving and an > essential expression of the soul, and by that virtue alone, i believe the > music is good, as it has reached someone and given something to someone. > > -AFC There you go again: you won't find 'essential expression of the soul' in something if nobody put it there in the first place. You can't take more from music, than the author put into it. The monkey (i.e. idiot with the damned K2000) does not self-express. (Try to beat this, you intellectual wimp! :-) Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:07:29 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music Mike wrote: > > > And I should note that I agree with Arne's assessment that trying to > agree on "good" and "bad" is a pointless waste of time, and that I > would prefer not continuing this discussion much further. You seem to > believe, despite your smileys and notations of "growing respect", that > there exists some absolute means of determining whether something is > "good" or "bad," and I DON'T. We're not going to convince each other, > so why waste people's time trying? > Ah, whatever. If you think you know better - fine. I just thought it would be a good idea to pass along some REAL information to somebody who seems capable of using it for something good. I never wanted to offend anybody, that's for sure. And I did not need to _prove-a-point_ - I'm secure enough with my views. Anyway, what's the difference between EPS and EPS 16+? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:07:58 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music > There you go again: you won't find 'essential expression of the soul' in > something if nobody put it there in the first place. You can't take more > from music, than the author put into it. The monkey (i.e. idiot with the > damned K2000) does not self-express. (Try to beat this, you intellectual > wimp! :-) > > Zak. > spare me your smiley faces. calling someone an intellectual wimp and then sending smiley faces, either is a sign of hypocracy or the lack of confidence to express your opinion without trying not be offensive. but if you want to continue this part of the debate, please do it private mail. The real thing is that i very much disagree with that "fact"/(your opinion) that you cannot take more from music than the artist puts there. What the artist puts there is completely unknown to you, what you get out of it is what you feel when you hear it. This is a continuation to the monkey thread, as i know of people that find just the randomness of some noise (and i mean music that is truly created randomly) the essence of it. You may not want to use creativity and other such words, but that is exactly what your needed 'self-expression' is. No excuses, AFC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 12:40:12 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: Re: FWD: YANNI'S MUSIC >Dear Mr. Metlay, :-) > >I wish I could be as cool-sounding as you are :-) No, you don't. Trust me, it's better to have friends. ;-> >But I can still appeal to the facts. > >Let's try. Okay. (Though I should point out that your arguments have so far not included a single fact, and are entirely made up of your opinions.) >> Nobody in the business would have bet a half-eaten hot dog on >> Tone-Loc, and everyone was CONVINCED that Hipsway was going to be >> the next Duran Duran. > >Oh, please - the first time I saw a fat black guy hoarsely mumbling >semi-obscene lyrics over Van Halen's semi-obscene samples, it was clear >to _me_ at least, that it was going to be a huge hit. I don't know which >'business' you're talking about. American record industry would not be >a good example of a working self-educating mechanism - it was never famous >for clairvoyance. Ah, but you've just proven my point for me! By the time you SAW that "fat black guy," he was already filthy rich, his self-produced basement rap record having been forced (literally!) into hit status by a strong following of radio listeners who parleyed one radio station's experimental airplay of "Wild Thang" into a phenomenon. The music industry IS NOT very clairvoyant, which is why it's unfair to state as a blanket generalization that anyone who does well in the industry did so because they were MEANT to. >Yeah, you're right. I just never saw Pat O'Hearn on Entertainment Tonight. This is true. |-> But you don't need Pat O'Hearn on ET; they HAVE an electronic musician in residence. John Tesh, the blonde talking head who anchors the show, has six or seven albums out. (Not bad stuff, if you like corporate jazz with a lot of Synclavier. I wouldn't term it "electronic" per se, though.) >> < some stuff deleted> I do NOT agree that "bad" music is objective. >> Not at all! "Bad" by whose definition? Yours? Mine? YANNI'S?! > >Of course you do! Give a violin to a monkey - you will definitely hate >the results. Same happens when you give K2000 to an idiot (no offense, >Yanni, just to prove a point). How do you KNOW I'll hate the results? You DON'T! There's a famous story about a chimp who painted for fun, and whose work was sold pseudonymously by his keepers to an art gallery which displayed them to great critical acclaim. People liked what he did. And the same goes for music-- you can NOT just STATE that someone "is an idiot" and that people will "definitely hate" the results of his being handed a K2000. How would you feel if someone said that about you? That you were an idiot, and that giving you a musical instrument would produce something everyone would definitely hate, just because their view of "good" and "bad" music didn't mesh with yours? "One man's meat is another man's poison." We have room in our heads for everything in the universe-- calling something "bad" walls off a part of our heads so we can't use it, and forcing others to do the same is cruel. THINK before you wield such a broad brush to paint other people with! And I should note that I agree with Arne's assessment that trying to agree on "good" and "bad" is a pointless waste of time, and that I would prefer not continuing this discussion much further. You seem to believe, despite your smileys and notations of "growing respect", that there exists some absolute means of determining whether something is "good" or "bad," and I DON'T. We're not going to convince each other, so why waste people's time trying? -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------------------ THIS IS A REPLY TO THE ABOVE MESSAGE SUBJECT OF THE REPLY: REPLY ------------------------------------------ Don't forget about the Chinese child prodigy named Wang Ya-ni who paints pictures of monkeys almost exclusively. A collection of her work was displayed in major galleries around the country, including the Sackler Gallery here in DC. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 07:02:47 EDT From: Douglas Ramsay Subject: Give us a break!! Recently, Metlay spewed forth this pearl of wisdom (regarding "Yanni-bashing"): MM>When you get on a mailing list like this and state that NOBODY could MM>POSSIBLY like such-and-such, all you succeed in doing is aggravating MM>those who do. Closemindedness serves no one. It couldn't have been said better!!!! It would be nice if we could stick to the discussions of "electronic music" and keep opinions within private netmail...sheesh! Peace. Doug ramsayd@smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 11:11:01 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Here we go again... Chris quotes me (man, do I feel important! :-) > > > Hey - I was only kidding... I apologize for infuriating the fine > > Americans subscribing to this wondefully informative service. > > > [...] > > > Zak. > > We're not all Americans you know - some of us have never even set foot on that > continent (but nonetheless believe it exists, and contains an astonisingly > large number of loudmouths and dickheads - and some very fine folk too, natch). I never said everybody _was_ American, I said I _infuriated_ Americans. The fine people of Europe did not seem to mind my adolescent remarks... Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:33:10 EDT From: wbf@ALUXPO.ATT.COM Subject: Never Saw the Original "Yawni" Post > Subject: Re: Fwd: Yanni's music > > Hi John, > > pretty impressive article. I don't think it has anything to do with > the public's taste though. Wouldn't you agree it's all in the hair and > name? I mean _nobody_ can possibly _like_ the crap that Yanni or > Kenny G for that matter produce! > > Nobody _likes_ bad music no matter how dumb and/or inexperienced the > listener might be. But when they want to buy an album or go to a > quiet concert, they pick somebody with hair... I think the story is > this simple. > > Zak. For some strange reason, whatever post started this Yanni thread, never arrived. Imagine all those responses to a post that hasn't happened, yet... for me, anyway. Although it may arrive tomorrow, could the original poster (John?) send me a copy directly? Thanks. Foxy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 11:01:36 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no I'm very sorry that people who can actually think seriously on the subject see me misquoted and taken out of context in somebody else's replies. And I did not mean to overload the forum with irrelevant discussions - I just posted my opinions on that damned article about poor Yanni... Andrea writes: > Taste , pleasure, enjoiment of music is absolutely relative to > a single person .. and it has to do with your cultural background, > your level of open/close mind, the environment you have been living in > etc etc ... > I agree with you completely, if you're talking about the _listener's_ point of view. But the article that started all this stupid mess raised a question about the _musician's_ view of music. And I as a musician have to know what's good and bad in music just like a member of any other profession has to know the situation in his/her industry. I mean - we do make judgements on our own music, why can't we make judgements on some- body else's? Thanks to Andrea and everyone else who took my opinions for what they were - sincere suggestions. And screw all those talking about 'pretensious drivel' - I never had any intention to sound superior just because I know something somebody else does not. My E:Mail address is cs461139@umbc.edu, everybody who wants to continue sending offensive messages to me is welcome to it. Cheers, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:15:14 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no real musical content) Y'all will forgive me if I cut and paste a bit. First: I think I'm seeing the dreaded resurgence of a thread which completely wiped out comp.music as an enjoyable forum: the idea that there is an absolute metric by which music can be judged good or bad. The only metric one has is the one that one has acquired through cultural indoctrination, access, and exploration on one's own. This is called "taste". For every person who likes artist X, there exists an equal and opposite opinion. Zak sez: >1. Popularity of an artist is not necessarily directly connected >to the public _liking_ his/her work. What other metric do you have? Buying, I guess. There is no question that there are indeed musical groups which are marketing phenomena more than musical ones (need we mention Vanilla Ice? Debbie Gibson? New Kids on the Block?). I don't necessarily believe that Yanni falls into this category. >From what I have read, he is indeed an honest artist who happens to be producing a product which is desired by a reasonable large segment of the purchasing population. I certainly can't fault him for that. Were I in his position, I would feel I was damn lucky, and very pleased that people enjoyed my music and were buying it. Marketability is not necessarily inversely proportional to honesty and artistic vision. Jesse writes: > There is bad by concensus. I think this is what ZAK > was talking about. Ithink this whole quesiotn revolves around whether > a music is effective and authentic. And any given population is equally valid when choosing a group from which to get a concensus. A rule which should always be remembered is that the Net is hardly ever a microcosm of society. The range of ages is skewed, general preferences are skewed, etc. How many people here are consistently reading and posting from the break room at a truck stop? At a laundromat? At a day-care center? Conversely, how many work ar government installations? Colleges or universities? Even if this group decided than performer X really sucked bad, that wouldn't mean a thing to the person-in-the-street. Or in the record store. Zak again: >3. Once again, I agree that music is very subjective. But I hope you >agree that _bad_ music is objective. We all can tell when something is >fake, can't we? See my comments above on "objectively bad". On fakes: Yes. If the artist breaks down in a sobbing fit and says "I'm a total hypocrite, my music is composed by dice rolls and I'm sucking money out of the public for all I'm worth," then you have a good clue that total sincerity might not be operating here. Otherwise, you can only guess, and pointlessly at that. Zak: >1. Can we define 'authentic' music as non-fake, i.e. sincere, > uninhibited, honest, uncompromising, etc. or at least some > of the above? Sure, but there's no way to objectively prove any of that. You can believe it, or have the opinion that it's true, but there is no proof. Zak: >2. Does selling a million albums qualify for producing 'effective' > music? I don't know. Does it? What does effective mean? People buy it = effective? I like it = effective? I don't suspect the artist of being only a marketing phenomonon = effective? This is a pointless question, because it assumes an objective standard that doesn't exist. Z: >4. When you talk about professional consensus, do you include Yanni > and Co. in the profession? (Tricky question :-) What are your criteria? "makes money" = "pro"? Yes. "I don't want to include him because I don't think he is"? No. Another non-objective question masquerading as an objective one. Z: >What I meant was this: if somebody buys an album or goes to a show, it's not >necessarily because they like the _music_. It could be because they like the >person, the hype, the hair, the stage production, etc... The simplified >>easy-listening New Age we are talking about is a part of pop-music now, isn't >>it? Sure. No question. So? My parents bought Pat Boone records. Just because I hated them didn't mean that the artist was insincere, or not well-loved by some segments of the population. (Fortunately, my sister never bought *Debby* Boone records...) Zak: >The artists you named don't really prove a point - Shadowfax does not sell >that many records. I was talking about making Billboard's pop charts. Well, of course. It's not marketed as pop. Billboard is solely a marketing organ. I'd expect a guy with a red suit and pitchfork to show up and tell me it just froze over if Billboard ever based its lists on "musical quality" or "artistic integrity". How many records *do* they sell, anyway? Enough to keep 'em in the stores... Zak: >My experience tells me that musicians dictate the tastes of the general >public and not the other way around. I don't think anybody will disagree >with that. Those dumb assholes were not born that way - we made them that >way, by tolerating bad music and/or bad musicianship. If you want to >continue that beautiful tradition - be my guests. I have the opposite. If this was true, why would we need record companies or advertising? I could just rent a hall and say "I plan to change your taste this evening", show up, play, and have everyone buy my album. Anyone laboring under the delusion that he can arbitrarily change anyone else's opinion or taste is doomed to disappointment. And finally, from Zak: >what _are_ you >expressing with your music - your personal feelings? Then I would not be >surprised if not too many people want to listen to it. Huh? What else is there to express? >If you do believe that some kind of objective information exists, what >would it take to convince you that a particular information is objective? If there were a set of equations that would let you do a Fourier transform of a piece and then come out with a good/bad evaluation, then I would be convinced. But as far as I can see, there aren't any that are not at some point based on a determination based on personal experience. >If you only believe things you know from your personal experience, >then it's sad - I mean, how much personal experience can you generate in >one life? A good bit that no one else will ever have, because they are somebody else. Sorry if that's too touchy-feely. There are no rules for judging a piece objectively, as far as I know. If you have some, then let's see them and discuss them. If not, then this is a fruitless and pointless discussion, based on beliefs that you think are laws. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:30:40 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no real musical content) Hey - I was only kidding... I apologize for infuriating the fine Americans subscribing to this wondefully informative service. Now I have to wash my hands and go and hang myself. But one last thing: you all seem very positive that I should not pass my opinions as objective information. And you don't even question the absurdity of the situation - your opinion of me passing opinions as objective is considered objective... If you're so sure of yourself, how come your country DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY MUSIC? Which one of you can say that he knows what he's talking about? (Oh, geez, I started sounding like Jesus Christ...) Still alive and kicking, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 04:38:50 -0400 From: Chris Gray Subject: Re: Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no real musical content) > Hey - I was only kidding... I apologize for infuriating the fine > Americans subscribing to this wondefully informative service. > [...] > Zak. We're not all Americans you know - some of us have never even set foot on that continent (but nonetheless believe it exists, and contains an astonisingly large number of loudmouths and dickheads - and some very fine folk too, natch). Chris, writing from the cultural capital of Europe, in the land that gave you the saxophone. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 12:48:59 MET From: Andrea TONI Subject: Re: Taste, rules, and musical integrity (no real musical content) > We're not all Americans you know Thnx God ! > - some of us have never even set foot on that > continent Thnx God part 2 ! > (but nonetheless believe it exists, and contains an astonisingly > large number of loudmouths and dickheads - and some very fine folk too, natch) .. I guess this just apply to the all WORLD !!! > writing from the cultural capital of Europe, in the land that gave you > the saxophone. What are you talking about .. what do you think is the cultural capital of Europe ??? .. Now seriously .. What is good music what is bad music ?? When we are talking about something that has to do with humans . just as about as everything is relative and subjective. Taste , pleasure, enjoiment of music is absolutely relative to a single person .. and it has to do with your cultural background, your level of open/close mind, the environment you have been living in etc etc ... and then successful music ..vs good music .. My very personal point of view is that when artists start to concentrate their efforts in the direction of "Let see how many people I can involved with my music ..." they *very often* fail .. In order to produce something that I can extremely enjoy and respect the artists have to move in " This is what I really feel inside me and that's all my music is about it ..like it or not !!" Music should be a true honest expression of your feeling .. a way to comunicate how you are deep inside you to lots of people ... a mirror image of yourself Sadly if you are honest with yourself and your music you'll *very often* fail to cover your financial problem. The audience response is a typical case of unpredictable event ! They can declare Enya as number one for weeks as much as they can do it with any other sort of cheap dance music. If Yanni sells a lot means nothing to me about its music .. I want to listen and judge myself. But I would certainly be happier if D.Sylvian sells a lot ! I just can't trust any public expression of taste .. .. and you shouldn't either ! I want to follow MY TASTE ! And again classify music (and people) in categories is just ridiculous .. What does it means to say that new-age music is good/bad .. there will be pleanty of rubbish and pleanty of lovely stuff in any kind of categories. I hate to generalize .. Learn how to spot the tiny little cute fish in the Oceans ! Ciao, ------------------------------------------------ENV---ENV---ENV---------------- Andrea TONI (andrea@sihp03.si.estec.esa.nl) | | | Planetary and Space VCO-->VCF-->VCA--> DUCATI 900SS Science Division (SI) | | | ------------------------------------------------LFO---LFO---LFO---------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 09:18:00 PDT From: metlay Subject: The light dawns-- I think.... Zak writes: >Finally, somebody's making sense. Thank you, Mark, for stating my point >much better than I could. My thanks as well, Mark. Your post, and Zak's response to it, have crystallized a suspicion that has been dawning on me for the past several letters-- namely that the gulf between what Zak is espousing and what we all believe is actually much more narrow than we originally thought. And I believe that it is because (quite literally) you stated Zak's point better than he COULD, English being decidedly nontrivial for nonnatives (ili, yesli vwi khotitye, skazat' po-Angliiski ochen' trudno....). What I believe Zak has said, and this is borne out by an excellent letter he sent me privately, is that the producer of music MUST establish rules and guidelines for the production of music, to keep it honest, real, non- fake, what have you. Where I think the communication has broken down is: >I don't think it will help, though - most >participants seem to only care about their own music being beyond somebody >else's judgement. Why else would they be so defensive? --right here. We have (mis?)interpreted Zak's statements as being that there is a SINGLE set of rules that must be obeyed by ALL "real" musicians, and he has (mis?)interpreted our (okay, at least MY) stance as stating that there are NO RULES AT ALL, not that there are no UNIVERSAL rules. We are accusing him of advocating thought control, and he is accusing us of espousing total creative anarchy. What I think we are all saying is that the establishment of rules and guidelines for the analysis and production of music, how we listen and how we compose, MUST be there (one could argue that it is impossible for a human mind NOT to have such criteria), but that the NATURE of these rules and guidelines may differ strongly from person to person. This whole argument was launched when Zak made a statement that Yanni's music did not fit his guidelines for "good" music, and this statement was misinterpreted as being that Yanni did not fit **THE** guidelines for good music. Hence the flames. It appears to me that as is common in these discussions, we have set about arguing very loudly about a matter where there is actually a lot of agreement, and the frustration springs from a poor definition of starting premises on both sides. I would like to think that cooler heads prevail eventually, at least some of the time, and I invite everyone to reread what has been written and try to see, as I have, common ground where there was only anger before. On the other hand, maybe people really DON'T agree with this idea, and maybe there IS grounds for a nice flamewar, to say nothing of the heated words and insults flung in various directions over the course of this thread. If so, feel free to do it via email, and leave me the hell out of it. I've said my piece. Damn. First Mark admits publically to agreeing with ME, and now I admit publically to agreeing with HIM. Must be something in the water. |-> -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:09:39 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: The light dawns-- I think.... >What I believe Zak has said, and this is borne out by an excellent letter >he sent me privately, is that the producer of music MUST establish rules >and guidelines for the production of music, to keep it honest, real, non- >fake, what have you. Yes, I agree with that absolutely. I won't write a piece that I don't honestly feel is "mine". I'm not sure I *can*. I suppose I could write, say, a rap or techno piece (neither of these is at all related to what I usually write), but it would have to be something I decided it to be, not what my producer or marketing rep decided it should be. >This whole argument was launched when Zak made a statement that >Yanni's music did not fit his guidelines for "good" music, and this >statement was misinterpreted as being that Yanni did not fit **THE** >guidelines for good music. Hence the flames. Precisely. I apologize for misunderstanding. I guess that some of us have become cynical about whether very popular artists can have a consistent set of musical standards simply because of popularity. Heaven knows there are any number of examples of "popular, but not true to him/herself, ergo dishonest, ergo not a 'real artist'". I know I tend to make this assumption. I feel much better about the whole thing now, and hope we at least agree that we have the same standards of "honesty". I believe that you have to listen to the music and listen to how a musician articulates what she is trying to do before making that judgement, to give the artist the chance to defend herself first. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:24:18 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Why so bitter? [My apologies to all concerned about this: I will take it to private email as soon as Zak starts putting his full email address in his mail so I can write to him directly.] Zak writes: >I know this is not a place to start logical arguments. I also know I sound >pretensious to you. But I don't understand your point: do you believe >in objective information at all? If you don't, then what _are_ you >expressing with your music - your personal feelings? Then I would not be >surprised if not too many people want to listen to it. I am both an artist and a scientist. I believe in what you call "objective information" in physics. I do not believe in it in art. When I play music, I express my personal feelings. And if you don't want to listen to my music, you don't have to-- just get out of the way of those who do. No person or institution has the ability or the right to label artistic endeavour as "good" or "bad," because their criteria cannot match those of the artists they attempt to control. >If you do believe that some kind of objective information exists, what >would it take to convince you that a particular information is objective? >If you only believe things you know from your personal experience, >then it's sad - I mean, how much personal experience can you generate in >one life? This is a ridiculous argument. You're stating that we must be able to believe in things beyond our own experience, and that it is a logical step from there to absolute measurement in the arts? "I have never been to France, but France exists nevertheless. Ergo Yanni is an idiot and his music is worthless." You lost me somewhere. >Again, my smileys are sincere. And I do respect you - I would not be >writing to you otherwise. Thanks. I respect you as well, although I cannot for the life of me understand how your mind works. And I'm not bitter, I'm frustrated-- you and I are both typing in English but we are NOT speaking the same language, and it's driving me nuts. PLEASE put your full email address in your next post, or better yet reply to my address (given below) directly, so we can stop boring the whole damn list with this. >BTW, how do I subscribe to SYNTH-L? Send email to listserv@auvm.bitnet or listserv@auvm.american.edu with a line of text saying SUBSCRIBE SYNTH-L Your Name That should do it. SYNTH-L is for hardware discussions and sales. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ren and Stimpy are the gerbil gods who infiltrate ENSONIQ samplers. (j. k.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:58:56 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Why so bitter? Mike writes: > Once again you try to pass off your own opinions as 'REAL > information', and... oh, never mind. I know this is not a place to start logical arguments. I also know I sound pretensious to you. But I don't understand your point: do you believe in objective information at all? If you don't, then what _are_ you expressing with your music - your personal feelings? Then I would not be surprised if not too many people want to listen to it. If you do believe that some kind of objective information exists, what would it take to convince you that a particular information is objective? If you only believe things you know from your personal experience, then it's sad - I mean, how much personal experience can you generate in one life? Again, my smileys are sincere. And I do respect you - I would not be writing to you otherwise. BTW, how do I subscribe to SYNTH-L? Thanks again, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 12:48:12 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: YAAGHNIII > He does't sing. > Yanni is a composer-instrumentalist, a pianist who doesn' >note. > Neither does Yanni espouse social protest or rail agains >establishment. > Who ever heard of a '90s music man without a political a > Perhaps that is why Yanni's concerts sell out and his al >the millions. Doesn't sing-----Thank god. Doesn't rail against the establishment---Because he's a product of it. And yes...that's why his albums sell, because millions of people have been convinced that anesthesia is the answer to their problems. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:47:17 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: YANINANI Bob sez: >If new age was all crap as I heard so >often, I'd expect it to have died a death similiar to disco. The disco analogy is good: when disco was current I hated it. But it had an important influence on some of my favorite music of the early eigthies (some threads of new wave and proto-industrial music) and continues to feed more recent styles that I like more than I ever liked disco itself. So disco didn't die and neither will new age. But hopefully Yanni will. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:16:47 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Yanni other questions? >From: "Oliver (O.R.) Sampson" >Sorry, if this seems late, but I get the daily emusic digest >rather than the single mail approach. But I think I can add just >a little bit. > >There is a quote, (and I wish I knew who said it.) "Talking >about music is like dancing about architecture." > >Sometimes it just doesn't make sense. > >Regardless, I REALLY enjoyed the dialogue. > > >************************************************************************** >Oliver R. Sampson "My father made him an offer he couldn't >Member of Scientific Staff refuse." -- Michael Corleone, _The Godfather_ >Internet: olsam@bnr.ca >"All opinions expressed here are the opinions solely of the author, >and they are in no way a reflection of opinions or policies of BNR, Inc. >or Northern Telecom." -- The boss says I have to put this in here. >************************************************************************** Forwarding this for Oliver... I've seen it attributed to both Frank Zappa and Laurie Anderson (I strongly suspect Ms. Anderson is quoting Mr. Zappa, since she likes to quote people to see how culturally literate the interviewer is.) --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:25:00 EST From: Robert Depin Subject: Re: Yanni's Music >Nobody _likes_ bad music no matter how dumb and/or inexperienced the >listener might be. >Zak. I've asked this before, "Who are we to decide whether music is dumb etc. ?" Here's a perfect example of someone creating music which has been accepted by the masses and the general reponse is "It must be shit!" I'm not a big fan of Yanni, however I have heard several of his ablums and find them quite enjoyable for what they are, simple melody's and repetition. IMHO the acceptence of this style of music is probably a reponse to the "head bangin", popular metal rock. I agree with the above statement, but I don't think there's anything measurable here. The CEO of my company (I hope a very intelligent person) is a big Yanni fan. IMHO all music has something to offer if we get by the Bull Shit of determing whether it's good or bad. Now if this offered as your opinion, I'm willing to consider that and as an inteligent, open-minded person formulate my own opinion. >Yanni is being spat on because he's popular. That does not make him >a completely worthless musician; I can name at LEAST six records by >artists no one on this List would slam out of hand that contain fewer >real musical ideas and less competent technique and execution than >Yanni's worst. >When you get on a mailing list like this and state that NOBODY could >POSSIBLY like such-and-such, all you succeed in doing is aggravating >those who do. Closemindedness serves no one. >-- >mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com Right On! Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 14:37:14 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: YES, MONEY Bob writes: >I think were back to the money issue here. I don't think media >afford to break with the currently accepted norms, as much as we >The real question is if there were nolimitations on these outlet That's right, we are back to the money issue. The ones with the money have always defined the norms: the nobility, the church(es) and now the monopolists. Sure there are micro presses and recording labels distributing new literature and music. But the centralization of culture in the hands of the media lords means that the others will always have to struggle, will always be disadvantaged, and will generally perish in the end. One of the paradoxes of the arts is that the dominant political and economic forces always select what will be considered normal and thus what will get support. While that seems unfair, from another angle the dominant style has provided the stuff that artists work with to fashion their creations. I've always thought that the Rococo-Classical period in music was characterized by the most trivial artistic ideals, largely inspired by the socially disconnected culture of the nobility of that period. But that was where Mozart drew the raw materials from which to create his great works. In our time the ideals are less clearly focused but what focus we have comes from the folks who dominate the airwaves and the malls (they're basically the same folks). We have yet to see what a democratic culture could do for the arts. In my minds eye I see a time and place where art is supported by the community, financially and spiritually. Diversity would be encouraged by the ease of access both to inputs (the raw materials required to produce art) and outputs (the venues to perform or display), and of course by the absence of monopolists. Much more emphasis would need to be put on local productions (virtual or physical) without neglecting to maintain a clear route for popular (in the real sense of the word) expression to achieve wider recognition. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 GEnie mail: j.stern11 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 14:59:10 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: YES, MONEY > > Bob writes: > > >I think were back to the money issue here. I don't think media > >afford to break with the currently accepted norms, as much as we > >The real question is if there were nolimitations on these outlet > > > That's right, we are back to the money issue. The ones with the > money have always defined the norms: the nobility, the church(es) > and now the monopolists. Sure there are micro presses and > recording labels distributing new literature and music. But the > centralization of culture in the hands of the media lords means > that the others will always have to struggle, will always be > disadvantaged, and will generally perish in the end. > It's my bet that in da future Internet will be the primary artistic distribution route. Lately, I've been incorporating my music into banks of patches for the Yamaha SY77. This way, if someone doesn't like the music, they'll trade it with their friends and continue the distribution process coincidentally. Kind of a viral music transmission process. All ftp'able for those in the know... the emusic archive similarly represents a non-commercial music distribution source. The FactSheet 5 model of zine criticism is a good model for culling the wheat from the chaff in a computer network. Mini-commentaries could provide clues to the listener about what to procure next! Money rules for the moment - but soon - hopefully - it will no longer be the problem in art distribution. Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 10:49:57 EDT From: Mark Subject: Re: ZAK I've never heard a note of Yanni's music, but after all this seismic activity on his behalf I'm beginning to think that maybe I ought to. I'm glad to see so many people care so strongly about what they listen to. To me it doesn't matter if your idea of good and bad music is the same as mine or anyone else, it's that you take the trouble to decide for yourself. What bothers me most in many of the postings in the Great Yanni Flamefest is the idea that since no one can agree on what's good and bad we shouldn't have such categories at all. It is especially crucial if you're involved in the creation of music that you refine your sense of discernment. Composition requires that you make hundreds of decisions at every step. On what basis will you make those decisions? Surely you will decide on the basis of what you believe to be the best choice. And your idea of "best choice" will be based on what you've heard in other music which has pleased or displeased you. So, by all means be open-minded, but don't be indiscriminate. --Mark Simon tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 11:17:44 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: ZAK Finally, somebody's making sense. Thank you, Mark, for stating my point much better than I could. I don't think it will help, though - most participants seem to only care about their own music being beyond somebody else's judgement. Why else would they be so defensive? Those of us who do release succesful records, offer them to the judgement of millions every time. Those of us who don't - seem comfortable with the idea that there is no good and bad in music, and everything is based on randomness and pure luck. Thanks again, Zak. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 11:27:22 -0400 From: cs461139 Subject: Re: ZAK Mama rodnaja, russkij chelovek vsegda brata pojmiot, kak govorit ikhniaja gazeta "Den'". Spasibo, Zak. ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************