What is "quality music"?

[sul G]

I was a little embarrassed on Billy Joel's behalf when I revisited "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant" last night . . . the introduction of the orchestra for a brief section is one moment in The Stranger which (by my ears) has not aged well.  (It's done rather better on "Until the Night" on 52nd Street.)  In comparison, I find it impressive how 'orchestral' a sound Genesis and King Crimson could achieve, and it was only the members of the band putting it together.  Also, the string trio is very well integrated on Jethro Tull's Minstrel in the Gallery (pretty sure it's just a trio: two violins and one cello).

You want to hear strings perfectly integrated into a rock band? Contributing something truly passionate and vital? Not conforming to the traditional strings-in-rock cliché? Utilising techniques learned from the avant garde, given new potency and physical impact in a 'popular' context? Pushing the music towards climaxes which are perfectly placed, breathtaking and sustained? You need the first two (or perhaps three) albums (plus early live album) by Tindersticks - orchestrally speaking, this is as musically fine and sophisticated as rock music gets, IMHO.

[karlhenning]

Most interesting, sul G, thanks!

[Haffner]

confusing color & activity with substance??...does any of the music approach the best of art music ?? hmmmm mere ephemera?

Aye.

[Franco]

does any of the music approach the best of art music ??

Yes, in my opinion.

[sul G]

confusing color & activity with substance??...does any of the music approach the best of art music ?? hmmmm mere ephemera?

Well, earlier I gave you an example of a piece of 'rock' music (inverted commas required) which approaches the best of art music, on art music's own terms - through which peculiar set of hoops you seem to be demanding music must pass to gain the JamesMark of quality. But my latest post, not addressed to your odd request, was describing music which is powerful and effective on rock music's terms. It's music which has a peculiar effect on me - as powerfully driven as some of the finest, most climax-directed classical music, but more visceral than any of the latter.

[Haffner]

Yes, in my opinion.

After listening to the second album...I'm guessing that you're joking.

[Franco]

After listening to the second album...I'm guessing that you're joking.

I wasn't referring to Tindersticks, I've never heard their music.

[karlhenning]

yea, read your earlier post but since i don't consider stockie's hymnen 'profound' or up there with 'the best' of art music, though i like bits of it...so your match is sort-of a non-starter . . . .

Thank you, James, for so economically recapping Eric, when his argument relapses to the "what does it do for me?" stage.

[sul G]

yea, read your earlier post but since i don't consider stockie's hymnen 'profound' or up there with 'the best' of art music, though i like bits of it...so your match is sort-of a non-starter

Funny, you've called it a 'masterwork' in the past. I'd have thought you like more than just 'bits of it.' This is the sort of shifting of positions which weakens your argument, James.

The point is that Hymnen represents (perhaps) the best of 'art' music in one particular dimension - and that Czukay's Canaxis, which stems from the same place and time and uses similar techniques, is at least possibly its artistic equal (I believe it is, but how can this be 'proved' either way?). Here, I'd agree with you - what use are these labels anyway, especially when the two pieces are so similar? We label one classical because Stocky is 'a composer' (in my previous post I even erroneously talked about him 'writing' Hymnen, so ingrained are the habits of language - I'd never say that Czukay 'wrote' Canaxis); the other is rock music because - what? - because Czukay was young and rebellious and went on to play bass in one of the greatest and most influential rock bands of all? Even though at this time he had a foot in both camps.... So you're right - this distinction is nonsense. Or it would be, except that there is something hard-to-define which does separate the two pieces, I think - and the difference is instructive. It's something to do with the way the Czukay goes straight for the jugular, emotively speaking; something to do with the way he finds a 'hook' and works it for all it's worth, without a shred of academicism. 'Techniques' - minimalist repetitions, tape slowing down, for instance - are used simply for their effect, intangible though this is. Stockhausen is concerned with effect too, of course he is - but there's more to it than that (as reading analysis of Hymnen reveals). But - and here is my point - where you might say this makes the Stockhausen a more complex and therefore greater piece of art (despite your dislike of the analysis which reveals the complexity) I say - no, it simply shows the aesthetic differences between 'classical' and 'rock'.

[sul G]

After listening to the second album...I'm guessing that you're joking.

I should be clear, I wasn't making the claim James implies for Tindersticks either, merely praising their use of orchestral instruments, which seems to me by far the best I've heard in a rock band, above all because it's all done without pomposity, but with life and drive and passion and no little skill. Stripped of these blazing arrangements, Tindersticks become a much lesser band (as their subsequent albums, all very forgetable, show). But what I was wanting to show was that rock music works best when it works on its own terms - taking a hoard of 'classical' violins and turning them into a splintered swooping swarm rather than, as happens far too often, trying to catch on to the kudos of the classical connection. (Sorry, far too much unintentional alliteration there!) And that's why James's attempts to judge rock music by classical standards aren't going to bear fruit (as he knows). As others have pointed out very fluently - the purpose and the aesthetics are different, and judging one by the other is never going to be possible except in exceptional cases (such as my Stocky/Czukay one).

[Haffner]

I wasn't referring to Tindersticks, I've never heard their music.

Thank God (extreme relief)! I was worried about you there, Franco.

[Haffner]

I should be clear, I wasn't making the claim James implies for Tindersticks either, merely praising their use of orchestral instruments, which seems to me by far the best I've heard in a rock band, above all because it's all done without pomposity, but with life and drive and passion and no little skill. Stripped of these blazing arrangements, Tindersticks become a much lesser band (as their subsequent albums, all very forgetable, show). But what I was wanting to show was that rock music works best when it works on its own terms - taking a hoard of 'classical' violins and turning them into a splintered swooping swarm rather than, as happens far too often, trying to catch on to the kudos of the classical connection. (Sorry, far too much unintentional alliteration there!) And that's why James's attempts to judge rock music by classical standards aren't going to bear fruit (as he knows). As others have pointed out very fluently - the purpose and the aesthetics are different, and judging one by the other is never going to be possible except in exceptional cases (such as my Stocky/Czukay one).

I appreciate very much your elaboration. However, I heard absolutely nothing in regard to "blazing arrangements" on the second album by the band. Most of what I heard could be classified as "Novelty Rock". Again, this is my opinion. There are Frank Zappa albums that make the the arrangements and "orchestration" on the Tindersticks album look completely laughable in comparison. No offense. Even though I'm not huge fan of the Beatles, I'd have to give their White Album a huge nod over the Tindersticks as well. It makes me wonder if perhaps you know the members of the band or something? Again, no offense.

[sul G]

I appreciate very much your elaboration. However, I heard absolutely nothing in regard to "blazing arrangements" on the second album by the band. Most of what I heard could be classified as "Novelty Rock". Again, this is my opinion. There are Frank Zappa albums that make the the arrangements and "orchestration" on the Tindersticks album look completely laughable in comparison. No offense. Even though I'm not huge fan of the Beatles, I'd have to give their White Album a huge nod over the Tindersticks as well. It makes me wonder if perhaps you know the members of the band or something? Again, no offense.

No, I don't, though I've seen them in concert a couple of times - once back when they were good, once when they were starting to become rather bland. What I appreciate in their arrangements is (IMHO) far more subtle than what one gets with the Beatles or the Mothers. Apart from a little glimpse of musical saw on one of the songs on the second album, there are no weird sound effects, no backwards guitars or studio trickery. In this respect, though I wouldn't usually say this, it is more the Beatles and Zappa who are 'novelty acts'. (Shoot me down, but I must say that the much lauded production and arrangements given to many Beatles songs leaves me cold - too often it's surface glitter that doesn't integrate with the song itself; I feel the same, for instance about the Beach Boys, with their weird and 'wacky' instrumentarium not IMO adding up to very much). No, what I find impressive about the Tindersticks arrangements isn't the instruments used but simply the way they are written for, which impresses more and more as I listen more: there is a consistent tone and a real character to the arrangements which means that just as we can talk about x's guitar and y's drum being personalities within a band, so the string section becomes a vital part of things in a Tindersticks song, lifting it far above where it would be otherwise (many of their songs are pretty similar in tone and, as I said, stripped of their instrumentation become much lesser, musically). I hadn't listened to this band for nearly 10 years until recently, when I thought I'd rediscover them - and I was astonished to find that, unlike other follies of my youth, they had only improved with age; I realised, though, that it was the arrangements which made this true.

[Haffner]

No, I don't, though I've seen them in concert a couple of times - once back when they were good, once when they were starting to become rather bland. What I appreciate in their arrangements is (IMHO) far more subtle than what one gets with the Beatles or the Mothers. Apart from a little glimpse of musical saw on one of the songs on the second album, there are no weird sound effects, no backwards guitars or studio trickery. In this respect, though I wouldn't usually say this, it is more the Beatles and Zappa who are 'novelty acts'. (Shoot me down, but I must say that the much lauded production and arrangements given to many Beatles songs leaves me cold - too often it's surface glitter that doesn't integrate with the song itself; I feel the same, for instance about the Beach Boys, with their weird and 'wacky' instrumentarium not IMO adding up to very much). No, what I find impressive about the Tindersticks arrangements isn't the instruments used but simply the way they are written for, which impresses more and more as I listen more: there is a consistent tone and a real character to the arrangements which means that just as we can talk about x's guitar and y's drum being personalities within a band, so the string section becomes a vital part of things in a Tindersticks song, lifting it far above where it would be otherwise (many of their songs are pretty similar in tone and, as I said, stripped of their instrumentation become much lesser, musically). I hadn't listened to this band for nearly 10 years until recently, when I thought I'd rediscover them - and I was astonished to find that, unlike other follies of my youth, they had only improved with age; I realised, though, that it was the arrangements which made this true.

Ah. I must be too much of a Philistine to recognize the subtleties. Thank you for pointing out this to me. I must be leather-eared because I listened again and I don't hear anything exceptional. Reminds me of this, extremely subtle and blazingly arranged novelty album:

[sul G]

you can't take something out of context like that as i may be using those particular words for different reasons/intent. this later comment i made sums it up.

You ought to be a little more consistent then!      The comment in question being, to save others clicking the link:

hmm ive never been impressed or won over just because of the scale of a work no matter the composer, more it's content & expression...hymnen while creative & ambitious..it's rather patchy, longwinded and indulgent (something many composers are guilty of) and i feel it could have been more compact & concise. Something that Telemusik & Gesang der Jünglinge have ...

To which I say - that's a pretty valid objection of course. I mentioned Hymnen only because it was the work which was being finished at the studio at the same time as Czukay was working on Canaxis. But Telemusik doesn't predate it by that much either. (G der J does, of course). Of course, if you find Hymnen 'patchy, longwinded and indulgent' and if you would prefer it to have been 'more compact & concise' (can't say I necessarily disagree with you) who's to say that you won't find the Czukay free of the first quoted errors and blessed with the second quoted qualities. It's certainly a lot shorter than Hymnen, and a lot more economical with its material...

again i will have to hear the Czukay thing you're talking about, but again, a non-starter i think and probably mere ephemera?...

...maybe, who knows? Too early to tell. In some quarters it is spoken of as the first rock music to use sampling, which gives it a rather privileged place in rock history - not that I expect this means much to you, and nor should it (it doesn't to me either, as I realise that if precedence really is all that important, classical music tended to get their first in most important areas - in this case KS got there beofre his pupil HC). (BTW, I think the album can be downloaded from that last link)

and you don't have to read analysis if to hear if something is more complex (again i don't mean complex in the narrow academic sense), if you have the ears, you can simply hear and pick up on it.

True, and Hymnen certainly sounds more complex than Canaxis. But - as I said - does that make it inherently better?

[sul G]

Ah. I must be too much of a Philistine to recognize the subtleties. Thank you for pointing out this to me. I must be leather-eared because I listened again and I don't hear anything exceptional. Reminds me of this, extremely subtle and blazingly arranged novelty album:

Does it really? Are you sure you're listening to the same album!  

I hope, BTW, I'm not seeing signs of offence-taken in that post of yours. Especially not as you repeatedly told me that no offence was meant by yours. Of course it wasn't meant by mine either, and I can't quite see where it was given, if indeed it was.

[sul G]

perhaps this is due to something i've alluded to earlier, something i find regular amoungst the musicianship found in the pop realms ..."because the fuel they burn is limited and the engine is inefficient." Doesn't really happen with the greatest composers who tend to grow & evolve with age and never fade!

Well, the general principle you're outlining there is something I certainly recognise, though your metaphorical 'limited fuel' and 'inefficient engine' would easily be turned on its head by someone seeking to argue for the 'other side' - something on the lines of 'they burned brightly for a short while instead of slowly and dully for a long time'.

In reality, I think that this distinction - which is certainly there - doesn't tell us so much about the quality of the music as about the different sources of inspiration and energy from which it springs. IOW, if one can get beyond the 'this proves that x is better than y', it actually might be quite useful to help us determine why x and y are so fundamentally different.

In the specific case I'm talking about, IIRC the band themselves felt that it was impossible to continue at the rather baroque level of intensity they had been working at and that a stylistic strip-down was required. Perhaps they were simply growing up, having kids, stopping sleeping on each other's floors.... Unfortunately it diluted the impact of their music 100 fold, IMO, even though the fundamentals remained the same.

Actually, though, there is a classical analogy for this expressive burn-out and subsequent classicising - think, for instance of the supreme artistic effort which brought forth Erwartung.....and Schoenberg's subsequent realisation that such effort was not sustainable, that music of a lower temperature had its place too, and that the twelve-tone technique was a way to turn the heat down somewhat. Worlds apart, you might say, and in most respects you'd be right. But it nags at me that it is the almost hallucinatory composition history of Erwartung which prompts this comparison. Maybe this, too, says something about the roots of rock music.

[Haffner]

Does it really? Are you sure you're listening to the same album!  

I hope, BTW, I'm not seeing signs of offence-taken in that post of yours. Especially not as you repeatedly told me that no offence was meant by yours. Of course it wasn't meant by mine either, and I can't quite see where it was given, if indeed it was.

No, once I say "no offense" that applies to any further posting between me to you. I honestly don't hear much, if anything, that is moving me on the second Thundersticks album. I feel like I wasted my time with it. I do feel that, say, the massive orchestra-gone-crazy section in "Day In the Life" by the Beatles is miles ahead of anything on this album, in terms of daring experimentation in particular. And I don't even really like the Beatles that much. For something more subtle (within a more exciting, and dramatic context compared to Thundersticks), off the top of my head I'd mention the string section during the vocal improv at the end of the song "Stargazer" by Rainbow.

But again, I'm a Philistine.

[sul G]

No, once I say "no offense" that applies to any further posting between me to you. I honestly don't hear much, if anything, that is moving me on the second Thundersticks album. I feel like I wasted my time with it. I do feel that, say, the massive orchestra-gone-crazy section in "Day In the Life" by the Beatles is miles ahead of anything on this album, in terms of daring experimentation in particular. And I don't even really like the Beatles that much. For something more subtle (within a more exciting, and dramatic context compared to Thundersticks), off the top of my head I'd mention the string section during the vocal improv at the end of the song "Stargazer" by Rainbow.

But again, I'm a Philistine.

If you really listened to the second album by someone called Thundersticks, then we're at cross purposes! I'm talking about something different!

(EDIT  - I've just checked - Thundersticks do exist and, to judge by what I know of your listening, I'd have thought they were a more likely band for you to have heard than Tindersticks, who appear to be something very different!)

[Haffner]

If you really listened to the second album by someone called Thundersticks, then we're at cross purposes! I'm talking about something different!

Right!