Apologies for my poor hand writing and probably lack of fluid ideas - these are just some notes I wrote today on a few ideas/thoughts I've had in my head for a while, spurned on by the unfortunate situation of listening to Radiohead's OK Computer this morning*. Some of the things I've written could be considered an appropriate continuation of Sam's earlier thoughts on reproductions perhaps?
Anyway, I'll type these words up for future readability soon and may even extend upon these notes (incorporating artist-musicians - Rodney Graham, Martin Creed, David Byrne, Andy Warhol and others?) for a short essay. Heck, could maybe even make it a manifesto/proposal for the new year - who wants to make some music?
John
*Must admit I'm not a fan of their music, but if it persuaded me to write down some ideas then surely it wasn't all to waste?
Can I make music with you? I've got a lovely singing voice... I remember Craig made a good point - those in music without training or education are perhaps thought of as more creative and talented than those without: yet it seems artists without a viable background are never quite welcome to the scene. Anyway- I find music is better applied everywhere and anywhere than art work. In fact, y’know I’d now love to see a scene in a movie; a characters moment of heartbreak where instead of listening to tear jerking songs in the rain they instead impose their misfortunes to some Cy Twombly scribbles. Music is to be enjoyed anywhere and everywhere with and without people; whereas art work seems strict in how it is to be properly appreciated. To this extent is a little impersonal? I have been thinking lately about backing singers in relation to song. First example that comes to mind is a Chili Pepper’s song. The lead singer declares “tell my boy I love him so”, which a backing singer later repeats. Does this make the backing singer an imposter? a surrogate? An echo? Another level of consciousness? heck perhaps hes bonding the lead singer and himself as gay parents? Perhaps more importantly does it detract or increase the meaning? It does seem usually ignored and rarely questioned. Also where backing vocals are usually an emotional depth to accompany lyrics “oooh oooooh”. I'm thinking of a song, not to the extent of Martin Creed’s nonsense of “Fuck You” or Talking Heads equally nonsensical Hugo Ball inspired I Zimbra, but basically a whole song swapping the typical non verbal harmonies as the main lyrics accompanied with harmonies of monosyllabic words? Iv also been giving much thought to performance of songs; reinforcing lyrics with actions. Nothing too Pink Floyd excessive but subtly summoning the emotion of the song with the lyrics. Perhaps this is just pantomime or a diagetic music video but just watch Bowie do it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1BB7jUt4sA
Heh, when I was writing these scribblings, I was trying to work out where Cy Twombly would fit in musically... Don Van Vliet? (now that's a good example of a symbolic-literalist!)
I think you can still be surrounded by art in the same way you can by music - it might just be that it's BAD art that you all too often see; to be wildly ignorant for the sake of argument, let's lump in commercial art (billboards, posters, television, brands etc), industrial art (architecture, furniture, household appliances and other mass-produced products), and amateur art (hand-painted signs, graffiti, homemade/kitschy/twee items etc) for examples of visual "art" that you can easily be surrounded by. If you then relate these to their musical equivalents (from rings, beeps and buzzes to "music"), then you can easily say that you're surrounded by bad, impersonal music too...
Interesting observation re: RHCP - what song? How does this idea fit in within the greater scheme of the song? All I can say is that it must have been done with reason. Perhaps only they know the true answer...
Must admit, I very rarely pay attention to lyrics in a song - more the general sound of the voice and its various inflections, harmonies, rhythms, uniqueness etc - so I'm personally all for the non-verbals. I'm reminded of the "trololo" song as a striking example of this, but also stuff like doo-wop that has a strong lead/harmonic emphasis on nonsense words, scat singing (Le Moochie Mooch?), a capellas groups, some early 90's rap (Das EFX: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmiiW936jqw), beatboxing, the instrument as voice (solos/instrumentals), or even listening to a song that's sung in a different language. Hmm, I'm noticed a lot of these could potentially fall under African/black music - the sociologist in me would probably file this under primitivism or savage theory, but I prefer to just call it catchy and effective. A sound is worth a thousand words? (I do think poor lyrics can spoil an otherwise enjoyable song sometimes, just like an accompanying statement can be the downfall of an artwork)
The RHCP song is Ethiopia. That tends to happen in a lot of songs though - another voice sings of the same story/opinion/perspective etc as the lead singer. It must be to give depth,but people can easily be their own backing singer within the studio. Perhaps its so many people can relate to it? As songs apply to many people in similar situations. Am I foolish in thinking alot of people want the song to be about them/relate to them/even glorify them?
what you say about how you listen to a song - inflections/harmnies etc. I am quite fascinated by rap music, mainly cos I hate most of it and fail to see how its popular. When the voice doesn't give much range, emotion or talent where do you look. The lyrics are often of anger and generally bitches, money and drugs. black eyes peas have some devestating lyrics - theres one that goes something like "girl you take me to ecstacy without having to take ecstacy, cos when im with you its like im on ecstacy". HOW CAN THEY RHYME ECSTACY WITH ECSTACY MORE THAN ONCE?!
I've thought before; what if you were to sing the opera in gibberish, would anyone know? im sure very few people our age could identify any lyrics or meaning. "eeeeyaaaaaHEYYYY malloooo" might raise an eyebrow but would surely be accepted as standard opera if sung well enough.
That's another thing I've considered. Musics influence on aesthetics. People more commonly dress according to what music they like as opposed to film, art or anything else (then again iv noticed most sculptors tend to have sculpted facial hair.)It would be hard to accept opera if (properly) sung by a stereotypically dressed punk - but then again I suppose similar stuff like that (though not as extreme)is becoming common in shite like X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent.
Hey all,
ReplyDeleteApologies for my poor hand writing and probably lack of fluid ideas - these are just some notes I wrote today on a few ideas/thoughts I've had in my head for a while, spurned on by the unfortunate situation of listening to Radiohead's OK Computer this morning*. Some of the things I've written could be considered an appropriate continuation of Sam's earlier thoughts on reproductions perhaps?
Anyway, I'll type these words up for future readability soon and may even extend upon these notes (incorporating artist-musicians - Rodney Graham, Martin Creed, David Byrne, Andy Warhol and others?) for a short essay. Heck, could maybe even make it a manifesto/proposal for the new year - who wants to make some music?
John
*Must admit I'm not a fan of their music, but if it persuaded me to write down some ideas then surely it wasn't all to waste?
Can I make music with you? I've got a lovely singing voice...
ReplyDeleteI remember Craig made a good point - those in music without training or education are perhaps thought of as more creative and talented than those without: yet it seems artists without a viable background are never quite welcome to the scene. Anyway-
I find music is better applied everywhere and anywhere than art work. In fact, y’know I’d now love to see a scene in a movie; a characters moment of heartbreak where instead of listening to tear jerking songs in the rain they instead impose their misfortunes to some Cy Twombly scribbles. Music is to be enjoyed anywhere and everywhere with and without people; whereas art work seems strict in how it is to be properly appreciated. To this extent is a little impersonal?
I have been thinking lately about backing singers in relation to song. First example that comes to mind is a Chili Pepper’s song. The lead singer declares “tell my boy I love him so”, which a backing singer later repeats. Does this make the backing singer an imposter? a surrogate? An echo? Another level of consciousness? heck perhaps hes bonding the lead singer and himself as gay parents? Perhaps more importantly does it detract or increase the meaning? It does seem usually ignored and rarely questioned.
Also where backing vocals are usually an emotional depth to accompany lyrics “oooh oooooh”. I'm thinking of a song, not to the extent of Martin Creed’s nonsense of “Fuck You” or Talking Heads equally nonsensical Hugo Ball inspired I Zimbra, but basically a whole song swapping the typical non verbal harmonies as the main lyrics accompanied with harmonies of monosyllabic words?
Iv also been giving much thought to performance of songs; reinforcing lyrics with actions. Nothing too Pink Floyd excessive but subtly summoning the emotion of the song with the lyrics. Perhaps this is just pantomime or a diagetic music video but just watch Bowie do it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1BB7jUt4sA
Heh, when I was writing these scribblings, I was trying to work out where Cy Twombly would fit in musically... Don Van Vliet? (now that's a good example of a symbolic-literalist!)
ReplyDeleteI think you can still be surrounded by art in the same way you can by music - it might just be that it's BAD art that you all too often see; to be wildly ignorant for the sake of argument, let's lump in commercial art (billboards, posters, television, brands etc), industrial art (architecture, furniture, household appliances and other mass-produced products), and amateur art (hand-painted signs, graffiti, homemade/kitschy/twee items etc) for examples of visual "art" that you can easily be surrounded by. If you then relate these to their musical equivalents (from rings, beeps and buzzes to "music"), then you can easily say that you're surrounded by bad, impersonal music too...
Interesting observation re: RHCP - what song? How does this idea fit in within the greater scheme of the song? All I can say is that it must have been done with reason. Perhaps only they know the true answer...
Must admit, I very rarely pay attention to lyrics in a song - more the general sound of the voice and its various inflections, harmonies, rhythms, uniqueness etc - so I'm personally all for the non-verbals. I'm reminded of the "trololo" song as a striking example of this, but also stuff like doo-wop that has a strong lead/harmonic emphasis on nonsense words, scat singing (Le Moochie Mooch?), a capellas groups, some early 90's rap (Das EFX: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmiiW936jqw), beatboxing, the instrument as voice (solos/instrumentals), or even listening to a song that's sung in a different language. Hmm, I'm noticed a lot of these could potentially fall under African/black music - the sociologist in me would probably file this under primitivism or savage theory, but I prefer to just call it catchy and effective. A sound is worth a thousand words? (I do think poor lyrics can spoil an otherwise enjoyable song sometimes, just like an accompanying statement can be the downfall of an artwork)
Alright, let's do this!
The RHCP song is Ethiopia. That tends to happen in a lot of songs though - another voice sings of the same story/opinion/perspective etc as the lead singer. It must be to give depth,but people can easily be their own backing singer within the studio. Perhaps its so many people can relate to it? As songs apply to many people in similar situations. Am I foolish in thinking alot of people want the song to be about them/relate to them/even glorify them?
ReplyDeletewhat you say about how you listen to a song - inflections/harmnies etc. I am quite fascinated by rap music, mainly cos I hate most of it and fail to see how its popular. When the voice doesn't give much range, emotion or talent where do you look. The lyrics are often of anger and generally bitches, money and drugs. black eyes peas have some devestating lyrics - theres one that goes something like "girl you take me to ecstacy without having to take ecstacy, cos when im with you its like im on ecstacy". HOW CAN THEY RHYME ECSTACY WITH ECSTACY MORE THAN ONCE?!
I've thought before; what if you were to sing the opera in gibberish, would anyone know? im sure very few people our age could identify any lyrics or meaning. "eeeeyaaaaaHEYYYY malloooo" might raise an eyebrow but would surely be accepted as standard opera if sung well enough.
That's another thing I've considered. Musics influence on aesthetics. People more commonly dress according to what music they like as opposed to film, art or anything else (then again iv noticed most sculptors tend to have sculpted facial hair.)It would be hard to accept opera if (properly) sung by a stereotypically dressed punk - but then again I suppose similar stuff like that (though not as extreme)is becoming common in shite like X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent.