Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Speaking as a drummer.

Is there no end to your talents? I do know that the percussionist has possibly the most difficult job in the orchestra (a percussionist told me that). The timpani is particularly difficult to tune.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Speaking as a drummer.

Is there no end to your talents? I do know that the percussionist has possibly the most difficult job in the orchestra (a percussionist told me that). The timpani is particularly difficult to tune.

I've never played an orchestra, but a kit drummer in blues/rock bands.

As for being a hard job playing timpani - people tend to notice when you screw up by the tiniest amount. Violinists can be masked by their fellows.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I would say that having a successful commercial formula predicted high for low quality music, so far from it being a "given" of good music, it's more of a given that commercial music was bad.

I tend to disagree. Since the coming of modern capitalist societies, the age of mechanical reproduction and the inclusion of all artistic practices into the market system, ALL musical endeavors are necessarily mediated by the commercial interests of media companies. Not only that, everything related to musical practices evolves around the production and distribution of goods and services (instruments, technology, performance contracts, venues, instruction, etc.). Sure, there still may be genuine musical interests from artists, but they have to find their way into the market system, which means finding the "succesful commercial formula". That leaves room for creativity, innovation and also a good development of specialized practices and standards that is called "the music industry", the same that gave us The Beatles (who were pretty much interested in fame and selling records), The Ronnettes, Queen, Rihanna and Fania All-Stars. All of that is commercial music, it cannot escape the label.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I would say that having a successful commercial formula predicted high for low quality music, so far from it being a "given" of good music, it's more of a given that commercial music was bad.

I tend to disagree. Since the coming of modern capitalist societies, the age of mechanical reproduction and the inclusion of all artistic practices into the market system, ALL musical endeavors are necessarily mediated by the commercial interests of media companies. Not only that, everything related to musical practices evolves around the production and distribution of goods and services (instruments, technology, performance contracts, venues, instruction, etc.). Sure, there still may be genuine musical interests from artists, but they have to find their way into the market system, which means finding the "succesful commercial formula". That leaves room for creativity, innovation and also a good development of specialized practices and standards that is called "the music industry", the same that gave us The Beatles (who were pretty much interested in fame and selling records), The Ronnettes, Queen, Rihanna and Fania All-Stars. All of that is commercial music, it cannot escape the label.

MacDonald's sell more burgers than anyone else. What you describe is the same thing.
You can trace the evolution of many bands that show a clear drop in the quality of composition the moment they achieve fame and commercial success. There are notable exceptions, however.
Nonetheless - using commercial success as a measure of quality is absurd in the extreme.
Take any manufactured "Boy Band", or "Girl Band". endless streams of formulaic repetition.
Who the fuck are Fania all stars.? (I looked them up - no need to answer) Traditional music played with heart is always good if not always successful - I imagine you could find their quality on any Saturday night in Rio or Havanna.

I think that you come from a different musical tradition, where only the good survive. Things in the west have gone the other way.
We have lots of natural talents, as does the Latin world of music, but we have reached to stage of mass market mass production, where carefully packaged products are immediately indistinguishable from the real thing. Where even good musicians pander to the lower common denominator, and record producers can be the key 'artistic' force in the manufacture; through concept design, audition of thousands of singers, and the cobbling together of strangers to form aberrations like The Spice Girls; about as sincere in their music a budget Cola.

That is not to say that great music cannot be successful, but this usually comes about more organically, where the bands find each other and present themselves as a package to record companies; or the record companies find them and sign them. It is important that when this happens the band maintains artistic control, as loosing it tends to guarantee loss of conviction.

Something Spanish...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo97VBMsCA4

Hobbes' Choice wrote: MacDonald's sell more burgers than anyone else. What you describe is the same thing.
You can trace the evolution of many bands that show a clear drop in the quality of composition the moment they achieve fame and commercial success. There are notable exceptions, however.

Always felt that way and it seems the common, inevitable fate of contemporary musicians. Once they find their comfort zone of commercial success, won't take chances and the easiest bet is any known musical recipe that appeals to larger audiences.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nonetheless - using commercial success as a measure of quality is absurd in the extreme.

I don't equate commercial success with aesthetic quality (nor with nutritional value), never did. I don't think the opposite is true either, I mean, there's no direct relationship: it can be commercially successful and have a good aesthetic (or nutritional) quality, or it may not. However, as all cultural products, music serves many functions, not only the aesthetic, contemplative one, and it can fit those other purposes in some ways better than others. Music in particular is useful, for example, for inducing mood states, none of which seems to be more valuable than others in terms of aesthetic qualities. That possibility is, however, exploited by the music industry, which designs and packs emotions for every public and all tastes (whether highbrow, midbrow or lowbrow), using well known formal rules of composition that have been around for centuries (typical chord progressions, scales, instrumentation, etc.). A mature, developed music business is often competent and masterful in knowing the rules and delivering the desired effects, while trying to repackage the conventional musical product to appear as something fresh and new (which we know it is not). Sometimes it does not show competence or it goes for the easiest trick (the danceable beat, the emotional emphasis, etc.) which for more sophisticated audiences may ruin everything. That happens with Mexico's "música norteña", which is absolute crap, and sells a lot.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Take any manufactured "Boy Band", or "Girl Band". endless streams of formulaic repetition.

Using a previous analogy, yes: it's fast food with low nutritional value. Doesn't mean it's not being cooked as it is supposed to be.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who the fuck are Fania all stars.? (I looked them up - no need to answer) Traditional music played with heart is always good if not always successful - I imagine you could find their quality on any Saturday night in Rio or Havanna.

Fania All Stars was a musical project from the Fania record label in the early 70's, based in New York. It reunited already established Salsa icons and emerging artists from several Latin American countries in a set of live concerts and records. It's recognized as one of the highest development and major influence of Salsa music and most of its songs and artists are considered "the classics" of hardcore Salsa. Although it borrowed from some popular forms of music in said countries, it actually made original contributions and also fusions with other musical forms as jazz and even disco.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think that you come from a different musical tradition, where only the good survive. Things in the west have gone the other way.

Interesting that you think the "Latin world" is not part of the "west". Not that we find that label particularly worthy of something, but the homogenizing factors of capitalists society make most differences somehow irrelevant.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:We have lots of natural talents, as does the Latin world of music, but we have reached to stage of mass market mass production, where carefully packaged products are immediately indistinguishable from the real thing. Where even good musicians pander to the lower common denominator, and record producers can be the key 'artistic' force in the manufacture; through concept design, audition of thousands of singers, and the cobbling together of strangers to form aberrations like The Spice Girls; about as sincere in their music a budget Cola.

Not much different here, I guarantee.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is not to say that great music cannot be successful, but this usually comes about more organically, where the bands find each other and present themselves as a package to record companies; or the record companies find them and sign them. It is important that when this happens the band maintains artistic control, as loosing it tends to guarantee loss of conviction.

I completely agree.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: MacDonald's sell more burgers than anyone else. What you describe is the same thing.
You can trace the evolution of many bands that show a clear drop in the quality of composition the moment they achieve fame and commercial success. There are notable exceptions, however.

Always felt that way and it seems the common, inevitable fate of contemporary musicians. Once they find their comfort zone of commercial success, won't take chances and the easiest bet is any known musical recipe that appeals to larger audiences.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Nonetheless - using commercial success as a measure of quality is absurd in the extreme.

I don't equate commercial success with aesthetic quality (nor with nutritional value), never did.

In fact you DID say that . The entire reason for this sub-thread is because you made that claim.
You said;
"Wouldn't say that is bad music, given that it follows a successful commercial formula."

Either you accept that music with a successful commercial formula can be bad OR you can support you statement, you can't do both.

I don't think the opposite is true either, I mean, there's no direct relationship: it can be commercially successful and have a good aesthetic (or nutritional) quality, or it may not. However, as all cultural products, music serves many functions, not only the aesthetic, contemplative one, and it can fit those other purposes in some ways better than others. Music in particular is useful, for example, for inducing mood states, none of which seems to be more valuable than others in terms of aesthetic qualities. That possibility is, however, exploited by the music industry, which designs and packs emotions for every public and all tastes (whether highbrow, midbrow or lowbrow), using well known formal rules of composition that have been around for centuries (typical chord progressions, scales, instrumentation, etc.). A mature, developed music business is often competent and masterful in knowing the rules and delivering the desired effects, while trying to repackage the conventional musical product to appear as something fresh and new (which we know it is not). Sometimes it does not show competence or it goes for the easiest trick (the danceable beat, the emotional emphasis, etc.) which for more sophisticated audiences may ruin everything. That happens with Mexico's "música norteña", which is absolute crap, and sells a lot.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Take any manufactured "Boy Band", or "Girl Band". endless streams of formulaic repetition.

Using a previous analogy, yes: it's fast food with low nutritional value. Doesn't mean it's not being cooked as it is supposed to be.

"Supposed to be" - what is that?
Undercooked seems the best strategy, so as no to challenge the mind of the buyer. Often such music is more about the style of clothing, the cuteness of the singer, and has no musical value whatever; often regurgitating other people's songs or styles.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who the fuck are Fania all stars.? (I looked them up - no need to answer) Traditional music played with heart is always good if not always successful - I imagine you could find their quality on any Saturday night in Rio or Havanna.

Fania All Stars was a musical project from the Fania record label in the early 70's, based in New York. It reunited already established Salsa icons and emerging artists from several Latin American countries in a set of live concerts and records. It's recognized as one of the highest development and major influence of Salsa music and most of its songs and artists are considered "the classics" of hardcore Salsa. Although it borrowed from some popular forms of music in said countries, it actually made original contributions and also fusions with other musical forms as jazz and even disco.

They are good, now doubt.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think that you come from a different musical tradition, where only the good survive. Things in the west have gone the other way.

Interesting that you think the "Latin world" is not part of the "west". Not that we find that label particularly worthy of something, but the homogenizing factors of capitalists society make most differences somehow irrelevant.

Sometimes generalisations can be strained. But from my POV. folk/jazz/blues/rock inhabit a fusion and evolution in which samba, bossa, mamba play no part, and crossovers are rare - until more recently.
I realise that jazz influenced bossa nova, but the evolution seems sideways.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:We have lots of natural talents, as does the Latin world of music, but we have reached to stage of mass market mass production, where carefully packaged products are immediately indistinguishable from the real thing. Where even good musicians pander to the lower common denominator, and record producers can be the key 'artistic' force in the manufacture; through concept design, audition of thousands of singers, and the cobbling together of strangers to form aberrations like The Spice Girls; about as sincere in their music a budget Cola.

Not much different here, I guarantee.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That is not to say that great music cannot be successful, but this usually comes about more organically, where the bands find each other and present themselves as a package to record companies; or the record companies find them and sign them. It is important that when this happens the band maintains artistic control, as loosing it tends to guarantee loss of conviction.

I completely agree.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: I don't equate commercial success with aesthetic quality (nor with nutritional value), never did.

In fact you DID say that . The entire reason for this sub-thread is because you made that claim.
You said;
"Wouldn't say that is bad music, given that it follows a successful commercial formula."

Either you accept that music with a successful commercial formula can be bad OR you can support you statement, you can't do both.

You're assuming "good or bad" here as always referring to aesthetic values, but I just meant good or bad in the sense that the formula is well applied and thus produces the desired effects on the audience. It fits well into the canon of the Rihannas and the Beyonces, which one may like or not, but you can hardly say that it's out of key or misses the beat. And the singing itself must follow some standards that separate these voices from the rest of the crowd (not too much, as we wouldn't have American Idol, and perhaps that's the whole point of music that appeals to the masses). So the canon is well established and I do think it meets some standards that are above amateurism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Take any manufactured "Boy Band", or "Girl Band". endless streams of formulaic repetition.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Using a previous analogy, yes: it's fast food with low nutritional value. Doesn't mean it's not being cooked as it is supposed to be.

"Supposed to be" - what is that?
Undercooked seems the best strategy, so as no to challenge the mind of the buyer. Often such music is more about the style of clothing, the cuteness of the singer, and has no musical value whatever; often regurgitating other people's songs or styles.

That's what I've tried to convince my daughter about One Direction, but to no avail. You said it yourself: it's supposed to be undercooked, supposed to be regurgitating other people's songs or styles, and there's a buyer, a consumer. If they do it with some level of competence, the desired effects will be met and the musical form has complied with its secondary function of entertaining a public. We might complain along with Walter Benjamin of the general state of culture that has lost its aura, but even in the most sophisticated forms of music from the record industry, that's all you get: formulas and effects, sellers and consumers.

I thought this thread was for music...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quZuGOcmVQ0

Hobbes' Choice wrote: MacDonald's sell more burgers than anyone else. What you describe is the same thing.
You can trace the evolution of many bands that show a clear drop in the quality of composition the moment they achieve fame and commercial success. There are notable exceptions, however.
Nonetheless - using commercial success as a measure of quality is absurd in the extreme.
Take any manufactured "Boy Band", or "Girl Band". endless streams of formulaic repetition.
Who the fuck are Fania all stars.? (I looked them up - no need to answer) Traditional music played with heart is always good if not always successful - I imagine you could find their quality on any Saturday night in Rio or Havanna.

I think that you come from a different musical tradition, where only the good survive. Things in the west have gone the other way.
We have lots of natural talents, as does the Latin world of music, but we have reached to stage of mass market mass production, where carefully packaged products are immediately indistinguishable from the real thing. Where even good musicians pander to the lower common denominator, and record producers can be the key 'artistic' force in the manufacture; through concept design, audition of thousands of singers, and the cobbling together of strangers to form aberrations like The Spice Girls; about as sincere in their music a budget Cola.

That is not to say that great music cannot be successful, but this usually comes about more organically, where the bands find each other and present themselves as a package to record companies; or the record companies find them and sign them. It is important that when this happens the band maintains artistic control, as loosing it tends to guarantee loss of conviction.

I can always count on you.

TSBU wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3epEVMNJdY

Oh wonderful. Computer-generated video-game muzik.

Isn't it odd, that in so-called 'girl-bands' and 'boy-bands' no one plays an instrument. Illiterate music for illiterate people.