Home > Messages from the Ether > Music stuff

To a good friend of mine who's a father that has a daughter, the song structure and import is adequately emotive. ;)

By what I understand of your "standards", I'm wondering if 98% of today's music seems trite to you. Based on what I understand of your critical angle, there seems to be this objective, rigid standard that music must follow before it satisfies said criteria. And that gets into there's such a thing as "good art" and "bad art"...a discussion that would be pretty pointless between you and I because I have an impossible time putting my arms around that.

For instance...let's take The Transmigration of Souls by John Adams I had mentioned to you before via email and you responded with some information. My initial impressions (I listined to it twice on the way to work this morning) are that it does not appeal to me. Perhaps I have respect that it took "time and effort" and "vision" and "technical skill" to assemble this work. But I almost find it unlistenable. So I tell myself that I must dig deeper of which I'm more than willing to do. If someone says something is good (This piece won a Grammy) I figure it's, at the very least, worth a look when I'm in the mood to travel outside of my normal listening habits. Even spending $12.00 for a 27 minute composition at that.

Is John Adams so much better than John Mayer? To me, the question really can't be asked because I don't look at the two bodies of work the same way. I will say I currently "enjoy" Mayer more.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic but I find it hard to construct for myself that music (by extension I include all "art") means the same thing to all people. Perhaps you see it as "trite" but you don't have kids and as I understand it, don't intend to have any (I must add that I know that you spend a lot of time with your brother's kids so in no way am suggesting that you don't like kids. I see the song in a favorable light and on some level I enjoy it and I want kids. My friend is compelled to assemble a PPT presentation with this as the backing track and he has a daughter. I find it completely acceptable that a cursory review of people's situations provides to me anyway, a reason why the song is trite to one person but markedly profound for another.

As far as Beck goes...acceptable to who? In what context? Why don't you tell us?

Also, it seems the point of the song escapes you. When I read the entire body of lyrics, I don't think of a daydreaming pre-teen doodling bubble-gum angst and longing for the cutie two desks away from her.

I don't see that at all.

Rather, I see (and Mayer has explained despite your advice) ;) that it's about being in a relationship with someone who has emotional "baggage" and the perspective wonders if this "baggage" has a cause. Preponderance by the storyteller leads to the notion that in some capacity, a troubled relationship between the father and the love interest is a factor in the troubled emotional landscape he occasionally experiences with said love interest.
Now she's left Cleaning up the mess he made
I don't know about you but an average 12 year old, typically, won't have this type of insight. I think the lyrics make perfect sense and creatively provides a good story of cause and effect and proscribes responsibility. It takes a moral stand (subject to scrutiny of course). All of which is served up on a palatable musical framework.

Maybe you can explain exactly how you would differentiate the two sets of lyrics (Beck v. Mayer) that find themselves on opposite ends of your taste spectrum. Perhaps you might think the above story is unnecessary melodrama ala` Dr. Phil but are we going to now describe what people are supposed to "feel" or what kind of emotions are appropriate in a given musical/lyrical/artful context? Does evocation of emotion have no place in art? No value? No intention?

That sounds rather dispassionate if that is to be the case. (Somewhat antithetical to the concept of art as I understand it.)

I try to find the objective aspects of music, if they exist.

In another blog entry, I just posted a link to a page that provides information on color theory. The information contained is, generally, objective and eternal. For example, when complementary colors are next to each other in an image, the affect is jarring or vibrant or generally active. This is based on the fact that complements share no color and therefore activate completely different sensors in eyes (basically). So, here we have a rule of thumb for art that is objective and universal. Shouldn't we then suspect that there are also rules for music (assuming I truly have made that point with art)?

One absolute in music is the use of consonance and dissonance. Consonant tones have wavelengths with whole number ratios (octaves are 1/2, fifths are 2/3). The energy patterns of consonant tones have more in common (the patterns repeat) than with dissonant tones (basically).

These are very basic scientific facts of art and music that merely suggest that some form of objective measurement exists. If some of the building blocks are objective, we can suspect that there is objectivity in the higher forms.

I listened to the Adams' piece. One technique he uses, a universal with music, is to repeat the opening section at the end. The classical ABA form is the most direct manifestation of this: (A) musical ideas are presented, (B) those ideas are varied and expanded upon, investigated to find their "character" as the composer sees it, (A) the ideas return in their original form yet--and here's the important part--are perceived differently by the listener. The manner that the composer had us travel through the B section makes us hear the A section differently from its original presentation. This is often used in theater: with the protagonist returning to the opening scene at the end--the same yet changed. The change could be either from the character's viewpoint (they have grown or diminished from what they were) or the viewers' (dramatic irony).

With Transmigration, the simple opening was an expression of grief. Yet after the various punctuated and chaotic sections in the middle, its return expressed acceptance. The piece as a whole felt cathartic as it converted the same idea (the A section) from one emotion to another.

I criticized the John Mayer piece primarily on lyrics, although similar criticism holds for his music. Mayer is writing music that has been written a million times before. People can certainly like it, and it can get awards, but that doesn't make it good music. But I may be biased because I didn't like his songs when Bread and America wrote them 30 years ago. So: what's wrong with "Daughters"?

- The lyrics are childish. This brings up the question of absolutes again--but I'm in the camp that anything Shakespeare has written is better than anything written about a man from Nantucket. Range of expression and interpretation is important. As I had said, characterizing boys as soldiers and girls as having good hearts is completely uninspired and one dimensional.

- What the fuck is a "good heart" anyway? Real creative. When you express something, you should have some skill or eloquence.

- Mayer has a sweet voice and can play guitar, but he has absolutely nothing unique to say. I'm not praising uniqueness for uniqueness' sake, so don't bring up that straw man. It is infinitely easy for Artists to mimic an existing style. It is difficult to take a style, make it your own, and make others interested.

I try to look at Art historically. Look at all of the complete crap that populated the pop charts from 20, 30, or 40 years ago. People were saying "oh, that's SO meaningful" then too. I don't declare that I have the ability, but as with anyone who wants to criticize Art, you have to try to take yourself out of subjectivity. Pop music certainly has its place--however, I'm interested in the pop music that rises above the ephemeral.

The question on the Beck lyrics was an honest question. Do you have no opinion?

(part 1)

"Mayer has explained despite your advice..."

If you have to explain your Art for anyone to "get" it, you're not a very good Artist. That's why explanations, although valuable for examining the artistic process, are worthless when valuing the work of Art. However, I got it and still say it's not very good (for the reasons I gave).

"I don't know about you but an average 12 year old, typically, won't have this type of insight."

Oh, come on! You're actually saying that tweens don't dwell ad nauseum on how difficult their parents have made their life? That's part of growing up (and why this stuff is popular with them). Read some newsgroups and you'll find entries practically ripped from the pages of Teen Tiger Beat praising how MEANINGFUL Mayer's lyrics are and how he really really really says a whole whole lot (possibly because he has a good heart). Some of that youthful angst turns punk (Bikini Kill, members were 15 and 16 year old girls) and some pop (Jewel, who was 17 for her first album).

The comparison with Beck was simply in line with this blog entry: I (randomly) was speaking about The Fiery Furnaces, John Mayer, and Beck, and focused partially on their lyrics. I really don't have a strong opinion on the Beck lyrics, and wondered if anyone did. The music is very good and the lyrics are very sparse.

This brings up another aspect of songs which I've been thinking about recently: what are some good and bad pairings of lyrics and music? The canonical example of skillful pairing from theory class is Schubert's "Die Erlkoenig" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Erlk%F6nig] (The Erl King). As each character in the poem speaks, the music changes key and/or register while keeping the same accompaniment style. The effect re-emphasizes the different characters to the listener. Take that technique away, and you have a much less expressive, and therefore much less skillful, piece of Art.

(part 2)

Real quick as I'm getting ready to head south for a quail hunt and wedding chores:

"Oh come on!" No, I never said a young kid doesn't have the ability to experience angst. But I think I can argue that although kids experience angst and frustration, it is safe to assume they may not understand the complexities and causal relationships between abusive parental figures and how that will shape their life in the future as this song suggests. I think it expresses an ironic, sweet regret.

Additionally, the songs "target" isn't younger kids from my perspective of appreciation. It asks me and my friend William to take heed; to consider the profound responsibilities involved with raising children. Perhaps obvious but it's a bit more creative than someone simply telling me such. Are there better more innovative ways than Mayer's offering? Surely there are. But that isn't neccessarily a requirement for me to enjoy music or tell myself, "Hey, that's good."

Finally (for this initial response anyway to your excellent responsive commentary), art is fundamentally symbolic. I think to expect delivery of its intent and message prima facie is not being realistic. To take some of your watercolors for example, I find them to be cryptic but I don't doubt there is something there and without knowing precisely what that is. It doesn't pre-empt me from making initial qualitative judgements (and yes, I would say that your work is good). Is it not possible to make those judgements without an accurate interpretation of your intent? Am I precluded from enjoying it?

The more I think and write about this, the more I am inclined to think the question of enjoyment and good (measurement against standard criteria) are two different discussions.

Something for me to mull over as I attempt to chase quail through the pines this weekend. :)

One final comment (so that I don't take advantage of your absence):

"[T]he question of enjoyment and good (measurement against standard criteria) are two different discussions."

I completely agree. I always try to separate what I enjoy from what I think is good. I enjoy some really trashy stuff, but I would never try to defend it as good Art. Maybe I should?

Nah--I really can't defend those Britney Spears videos.

One more quick thought: recognizing bad Art is always easier when compared against a similar but better work. Rogert Ebert always does a good job of this when he reviews a bad-but-popular movie. He'll say "don't waste two hours of your time on this when such-and-such [usually from somewhere like Estonia or U.A.E.] is so much better." And he's usually correct.

Good luck killing things!!