What are you listening to?

[Jon]

I have not. If i can find those, I will definitely check them out.

[Fade to Black]

Mariah Carey - Fantasy (must've listened to this at least 30 times in past 2 days)

[doldrums]

[Anway, it seems like my question was answered and many of these bands are hardcore/post-hardcore/noise rock befitting the SZ aesthetic. Not my cup of tea, so I will continue to live in ignorance of 95% of the bands discussed on here.[/QUOTE]

Casem, I havent been here for too long but the last several pages that I've been a part of are **hardly** limited to the genres you mentioned above and plenty of amazing piano music mentioned in the thread as well (assuming that is where you are coming from or wanting to go). I'll echo the others and make sure to include rough descriptions in the future but it can get tricky and it certainly feels awkward trying to paint certain musics into a corner with labels (giving myself an out if I resort to strictly namechecking in the future).

[sam_tem]

Sylvain_Chauveau-The_Black_Book_of_Capitalism

never really enjoyed this guys stuff, but i always see his name all over whenever he releases something. i guess i'm underwhlemed once again.


Stag Hare - Black Medicine Music

now this is enjoyable. some decent tribal/drony stuff.


Brethren Of The Free Spirit - The Wolf Also Shall Dwell With The Lamb

james blackshaw and jozef van wissem (or whatever his name is). i have mixed feelings about this. it's of course very accomplished and for the most part is very enjoyable but some parts remind me of all these lame folk bands and traditional groups that have sprung up over the past years and leave a bad taste in my mouth.


pavement - Brighten the corners (Nicene Creedence ed)

definitely overpacked with too much stuff, but i suppose all reissues are. it's just so comforting to listen to pavement. the quientessential 90's band.

[Jon]

^sounds good sam tem, the first two sound really interesting...

[black horizons]

Shit, early Swans gotta check that out! Children of God is kinda THE album, but I prefer all before that. Post-punk spatial depression at the limits of that genre's possible heavyness (?).

Some others;

Newer Dystopia album, a bit rawer, not the best recording or finest moment, but still all that I have always loved about them and a solid effort. I guess they did up the intensity of the samples.

Knelt Rote LP - Portland act doing a mixture of crust, war metal, and harsh noise. Unrelenting. http://kneltrote.blogspot.com/

Wolfmangler LP I put out, shameless self-promotion! Jandek meets Khanate? www.black-horizons.com

Joy Division - some rasta guy told me I look like Ian Curtis, so yeah, that explains that.

Comus, Chrome, some free jazz LPs....

[destroyed]

^ your label looks fantastic (fantasmagoric?!)

i have only heard of "my cat is an alien"; is there like a quintessential black horizons release? where to start?

(i love that so many of the bands' names are unpronounceable; that suits my general unwillingness to share or talk about music with people [like in the flesh]).

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

the thing is, casem is a composition student, isn't he? of all people, that implies some ability to understand that giving verbal descriptions of this stuff, the sort that are neither self-referencing nor overly simplified, is something of a challenge. and as for something broadly blanketed with 'not one's cup of tea', i've to say that it presents measurably more diversity and vitality than contemporary classical, which in the twilight of its days has become something wholly by and mostly for the academia.

Wim Mertens... Humility



Zbigniew Preisner... Part Two Life: Love

[maldoror]

Comus, Chrome, some free jazz LPs....

1st or 2nd album?

first utterance is so fucking amazing. I've never been able to get into to keep from crying the same way (except for "down (like a movie star)" which is just beyond words awesomely insane)

[AKA*NYC]

1st or 2nd album?

first utterance is so fucking amazing. I've never been able to get into to keep from crying the same way (except for "down (like a movie star)" which is just beyond words awesomely insane)

i have a copy of first utterance inscribed by david tibet

[casem]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I feel I've been misunderstood here. My main goal has been accomplished that people may say a word or two about what they are listening too for the benefit of my ignorance, for that I am thankful.

To doldrums: I wasn't saying that all the music listed fits into one categorie, but that much of the music I have never heard of might be part of the same genre. This assumption was based on the fact that the same people are having in-depth discussions about these bands so I figured they must all be into a similar category of music. This is what my original question was getting at and I think I got the answer.

Merz is right, I'm not currently a student, but my Master's degree was in composition and I plan on going back for my PhD next fall. So my interest in exploring music I don't know is genuine. But I don't expect in depth analysis of the bands mentioned, maybe just a word about the genre or aesthetic would help me out. I know "artists" don't like to be "classified" (read with sarcasm) but nobody is without influence or comparisons which can be helpful, especially when you can't post actual musical samples. For now, I don't mind calling my music "the expressionist freedom of dissonance pioneered by Schoenberg and Webern combined with patterns and structures from the minimalism of Reich" in hopes that one day someone will use my name to describe their music.


As far as contemporary classical having less to offer due to it being overly academic, this is something I have struggled with so I have quite a lot to say about it.

1.) Merz, just as you wish that I wouldn't write off your type of music as "not my cup of tea" I hope you will afford the same respect that not all classical music is overly academic and irrelevant.

2.) I agree, there is a lot of crappy overly academic music out there. I've never wanted to be that composer who is highly respected by the academy but only 3 people have ever heard his music. Like most arts today, the problem lies in how you define classical music. The splintering of genres in the 20th century has blurred the lines between what's classical and what isn't. The definition of contemporary classical as something it takes a degree in mathematics to write and is un-listenable to the untrained ear is severly outdated stemming from the serial music that was en-vogue in the 50s and 60s. Today, contemporary classical music has come a long way in accepting influence from older classical traditions, popular music, electronic music and music of other cultures under its umbrella.

3.) So, what defines classical music then? For me, the fundamental difference between classical and popular is this: The distinction between genres and even individual songs in popular music is purely aesthetic whereas the distiction between classical composers/movements/pieces is tied more closely to purely musical content (I believe Adorno has argued something similar applying to all popular culture, so I can't take all the credit). For example, Britney Spears and your favorite hard-core band use fundamentally the same musical material. The same 3 chords, similar melodies and musical structures etc. What differentiates them is the aesthetic, one may use more distortion while the other is highly processed, one singer may spit and growl while the other coos seductively. But the only thing that changes from one genre or one song to another is presentation, not musical content. Whereas what distinguishes Racmaninoff's piano works from Philip Glass' is purely musical content. They each have a completely different approach to tonal organization, structure, rhythmic devices and pacing while the aesthetic remains the same (they're both for piano).
This is what draws me to compose contemporary classical music rather than other genres. I love the spirit of innovation and exploration of musical ideas rather than repackaging the old musical material.

4.) The above is not to say that one approach is better than the other, but rather they satisfy different aspects of the experience. Yes, I listen to PLENTY of musically dumb music, but I like it because the aesthetic speaks to my personality. Which rolls back around to why I said "post-hardcore/noise rock/screamo whatever you call it" is not my cup of tea: because the aesthetic does not appeal to me. Another problem for me (may be controversial) is I don't like pop musicians that take themselves to serisouly. Most of the "dumb" music I listen to knows it's dumb. I have a problem when people think they are making high art by putting the same old shit in a new package. Of course, this may not apply to the bands mentioned here because as I have stated, I don't know anything about them.

Anyway, that ends my rant for now. I hope I've cleared up where I'm coming from. In a conciliatory spirit, Merz or someone else should give me a short list of must-haves from the bands being discussed here and I'll go check 'em out.

the thing is, casem is a composition student, isn't he? of all people, that implies some ability to understand that giving verbal descriptions of this stuff, the sort that are neither self-referencing nor overly simplified, is something of a challenge. and as for something broadly blanketed with 'not one's cup of tea', i've to say that it presents measurably more diversity and vitality than contemporary classical, which in the twilight of its days has become something wholly by and mostly for the academia.

[casem]

I wasn't calling all popular music "dumb" I was more trying to disparage my own musical tastes, saying that despite my education not everything I listen to is high-brow. I love Yeah Yeah Yeahs for example, their music is simple and silly but I like it.
Terms are a problem as much of what I refer as popular music is not very popular and there is nothing "classical" about contemporary classical music. Some scholars prefer "art-music" in place of classical, but I was afraid that term makes even more of a hierarchical distinction.

Anyway, I will say no more until you get a chance for a proper response.

I am going to provide a proper answer to this shortly, though i'm a little alarmed. your theory on drawing distinction between 'dumb' music and otherwise leaves little room for things that largely exist in between, without proper academic classification, but likely having more in common with Stockhausen than Spears. You must also furthermore acknowledge that academia uses 'pop' in reference to everything outside of itself, and in doing so sets the stage for writing its own epitaph. chief offender is not the dumb music that takes itself seriously, so much as the dumb music that somehow walled itself off in lofty, marble-shitting pretense & self-indulgent analysis.

[black horizons]

^ your label looks fantastic (fantasmagoric?!)

i have only heard of "my cat is an alien"; is there like a quintessential black horizons release? where to start?

(i love that so many of the bands' names are unpronounceable; that suits my general unwillingness to share or talk about music with people [like in the flesh]).

Thanks! It is a pretty eclectic mix, but all experimental in general. The Wolfmangler LP is maybe the most professional release, and the MCIAA / Valerio 7" is well... very pretty all around modern free jazz electronic noise hybrid, but some of the tapes are real great stuff as well, and very artistically presented. I designed a tape with a strange cover, it is not out yet, but Ann D and her asymmetric ways were a good portion of the inspiration for the design!

And to Maldoror, the first LP. I listen to it ALL THE TIME.

Let's talk progressive synth?

[black horizons]

i have a copy of first utterance inscribed by david tibet

That is a real deal grail right there.

[black horizons]

3.) So, what defines classical music then? For me, the fundamental difference between classical and popular is this: The distinction between genres and even individual songs in popular music is purely aesthetic whereas the distiction between classical composers/movements/pieces is tied more closely to purely musical content (I believe Adorno has argued something similar applying to all popular culture, so I can't take all the credit). For example, Britney Spears and your favorite hard-core band use fundamentally the same musical material. The same 3 chords, similar melodies and musical structures etc. What differentiates them is the aesthetic, one may use more distortion while the other is highly processed, one singer may spit and growl while the other coos seductively. But the only thing that changes from one genre or one song to another is presentation, not musical content. Whereas what distinguishes Racmaninoff's piano works from Philip Glass' is purely musical content. They each have a completely different approach to tonal organization, structure, rhythmic devices and pacing while the aesthetic remains the same (they're both for piano).
This is what draws me to compose contemporary classical music rather than other genres. I love the spirit of innovation and exploration of musical ideas rather than repackaging the old musical material.

I would have to strongly disagree with you on this statement. The range of what is considered "popular" music is far to wide to say that everything would have some relate able musical qualities to Spears. For easy example, please compare say, MERZBOW (Japanese harsh noise artist), with Brittany Spears. There is none to be found, yet he would still fall under academias broad definition of popular music. However, "art music" would maybe include Merzbow.

I just see that as a very snobby way of looking at anything outside of acadamia, especially comparing hardcore, one of the most basic and amateurish of "popular" musical aesthetics. Of course it is easy to compare it to pop music.