catapult magazine

Thought I’d make a new category to reply to Norb’s comment that seemed to imply that you had to have more musical maturity to understand jazz than U2.

Maybe your right about maturity and jazz, but perhaps the older you get the easier it is to understand previous generations.

On the other hand, if the suggestion is that electronic compositions by the likes of U2, (or Eminem of the hip hop generation) have inherently less musical depth than Bee Bop, I would have to disagree.

The new electronic musical dimension which is closely associated with timbre has something to do with frequency alocation. The options are endless. There are 20,000 frequencies to choose from. Multiply that by 20 tracks and and an infinite number of waveform patterns and you can really make a lot of different noises.

I’m not sure that norb was referring to the depth of frequencies as much as the depth of emotion in jazz (though I would argue that U2 has explored more range of emotion than many-a-band, which explains their long career).

However, it is good to highlight the fact that comparing older forms of music with what many recording artists are doing today is very difficult. It seems like classical music fans often criticize rock, techno and hip hop for sticking to formulaic song structures and melodies without realizing the astounding innovations in sonic diversity and performance style that happens in pop/rock music.

I was really just going after a cheap little slam for my friend Grant. Hi Grant!
To be honest, there are very few genres that I do not appreciate. I may not like them, but I can appreciate their “value”. Jazz and Classic/Blues Rock are my personal favorites. I love U-2. I always have.
To me, music has been in a (pardon the poor reference) “downward spiral” for quite some time. That’s typical however, before a major breakthrough, at least in “pop” music. The music of today (N’ Sync, Backstreet Boys, Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears) is perfectly comparable to the short lived 80’s pop (Menuedo, NKOTB, Tiffany, Debbie Gibson). It was almost immediately after this that deeper, more fundamentally challenging music was born in grunge (not that I’m a huge grunge fan but I can appreciate it more than a remake of “Locomotion” or “Touch Myself”). There are several other examples as well.

U-2 is a band that has gone through all of these changes. They have changed their look and their sound to stay in the loop and yet try to keep it respectable. The music I respect the most is the music that looks back and transforms in meaningful, creative and altogether cerebral ways. I would include Zeppelin (taking from the old blues masters), John Coltrane (taking everything from his buddy Miles Davis to Hammerstein), and Jethro Tull, Alman Bros., and ELP (who routinely go back to classical music). I don’t quite put U-2 in this category.
So, all-in-all, no offense meant and hopefully none taken. Consider this an explanation of what I look for.

I think what Joel’s trying to say, though, is that the contributions U2 has made are not the same as those of Led Zeppelin, Coltrane etc., but they are of equal value.

Taking Miles Davis as an example might help to explain what Joel is getting at. Miles Davis took jazz in interesting directions. His infatuation with Jimi Hendrix and the funky brothers of the late sixties and seventies led him (along with others) to produce a whole new jazz sound. I am told, though, that one of Davis’ strongest desires was that his music would bring a large group of regular folk to his concerts to share in this communal experience of jazz. Davis wanted to host big parties with his music, with people dancing and jumping around together, James Brown style. Davis never really achieved this with his music, however. Instead, college students came to the concerts to stroke their beards and contemplate the chord structures and rhythms.

I tend to think that this bringing of people together is U2’s strength. U2 has articulated a certain spirit that has never before been articulated in quite the same way. U2 outdoes Miles Davis when it comes to bringing people together in concert. U2 also has formed a musical style (or two or three) that plays on the radio, but is rich in emotion and interesting sonically and structurally—a difficult task. I think U2 have purposely avoided some of the marketing that would make them appear artsy, cerebral or as innovative geniuses like Miles Davis and others sometimes appear. The question then is not who is the better artist, but in what ways have they contributed?

I hope Joel has time to follow up on some of the exciting things happening in music today and throughout the nineties, within and without grunge, especially in hip hop, Michael Jackson’s “Dangerous”, NIN’s “Downward Spiral”, Beastie Boys’ “Check Your Head”, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bjork etc. I hope the romanticism surrounding the sixties and seventies doesn’t cloud our judgment when it comes to seeing the greatness of our own musical artists who are alive here and now.

“I hope the romanticism surrounding the sixties and seventies doesn’t cloud our judgment when it comes to seeing the greatness of our own musical artists who are alive here and now. "

Here here. Or hear hear? Whatever. Well put Grant, and well timed too. I do believe that this is one fault in my own perceptions of music. Something to work on I suppose.
As far as U-2 bringing people together, I agree. They have done a good job in bringing many different ages, classes, races (whatever really) together into fundamentally good music. I’m not exactly sure if that should be the ultimate direction of an artist or not. Maybe it is. That probably wasn’t what you were getting at anyway, but I figured it’s a little relevant.
To me U-2 has been a bit disappointing. Sure they’ve changed styles, and helped form some for that matter, but I’ve never seen the real power behind their music apart from the “We’re anti pop by being pop” mentallity. Perhaps I just don’t understand it as well as I should.

When I was talking about frequencies I was trying to define the new musical language.??

Computers have allowed musicians to create sonic landscapes that weren’t possible in the 60’s and 70’s.?? Public enemy, Nine inch Nails and the Beastie Boys were the first to really communicate this language well.?? Bjork, DJ Shadow and Dr Dre have taken it to the next level.

Sounds themselves have emotion.?? Music born out of computers often doesn’t even bother with performance, it just focuses on the sound.

It would be good if people with mature musical sensitivity would look for that maturity within the new musical languages.???
?

ok, I sort of stayed out of this because I wasn’t quite sure what joel was getting at, and now i really have no idea what joel is trying to say . Are you saying that music made with computers sounds different than music made without computers? If so, then I agree with you, but I don’t quite understand the point — music has been evolving from the beginning of time; sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. I don’t really agree with you that modern music is a ‘new language’. I see a few new dialects every now and then, but i don’t really see any new languages of music (confining our discussion to western popular music). Interestingly, people like miles davis in the 60s and 70s were probably about as close to a ‘new language’ as american pop music has come in recent times. He challenged assumptions about melody, harmony and rhythm in a way that very few modern musicians do. Today’s musicians may use different tools, but by and large they’re working within the same language.

Back to miles though, I’m going to take issue with grant’s rather condescending description of miles davis and others like him that don’t feel it necessary that their music appeal to the lowest common demonimator. I know you’re not saying it because you hate miles davis or anything, but even so, I get a bit tired of people characterizing as elitist anything that has a limited audience. It’s not for everybody, but why does it have to be? With Norbert, i’m not sure that an artist’s greatness or influence should be measured according to how many people they can (or try to) reach. But that leads me to my next point.

It all depends on what you look for in music. Do you look for technical brilliance on a musical instrument? Do you look for emotional depth? do you look for skill in improvisation? Do you look for a great show? Do you look for things that will surprise you? Do you look for something that can bring people together? Do you look for things that get your blood pumping?

Depending on exactly what you’re looking for and what your interests are, you’re probably going to find more ‘depth’ in specific genres or time periods of music. 30 years ago, most popular musicians were more technically proficient with their instruments and more adept at improvisation than most popular musicians today. So if that’s what you look for, you’ll likely find much more depth in classic rock, blues, and jazz. Not an absolute rule, but i think it fits as a general observation. If your interests lie elsewhere, you will find more depth in other types of music. And these interests will color your perceptions of the relative importance of contributions by different artists. That’s to be expected, and i think it’s healthy. For example, i would most likely not attribute equal importance to the contributions of miles davis vs. U2, but grant would. That’s fine, and perhaps in 20 years time, when i’ve had the chance to observe the course of music, i may modify my opinion.

Now, I must say that i respect joel’s opinion on music a lot, and i also really appreciate good rap. But I must say that from what I’ve heard, Dr. Dre isn’t taking anything to a next level, much less the state of music. Maybe he has a new album out that will blow my mind (?) Please fill me in here.

jonner,

I think we’re saying the same thing here about contributions in music. I do not have a problem with music for a small group of people. I used Davis as an example because it was his own desire to have the kind of audience that he couldn’t achieve. So Davis himself was not satisfied with his own gifts and contributions. U2, however, could never achieve what Miles Davis achieved, yet they have contributed greatly when it comes to the communal concert experience and, I would add, redeeming the mass audience “big show” performance (U2 often says that they have succeeded with an intimacy of thousands where the Beatles failed only because technological advancements made the MEGA-TV possible).

As to what Joel is saying, I think your comments jonner prove what he is talking about. You seem to be thinking of the language of music in terms of rhythm, melody, harmony, instrumentation etc. Joel is trying to expand this definition to include sound itself. Because it is possible for us to see and manipulate frequencies with computer technology, our ears should become increasingly refined so that we can hear the sonic contributions of Dr Dre, the emotion that is communicated in the sound itself. Just as the history of music moved from pure rhythm and straight tones to harmony and other melodic possibilities thanks to innovations in instrumentation, so the computer is moving music (and the way we hear it) forward still.

grant,
i realized that i was basically agreeing with you after I finished writing :)

And I heartily agree with your assertion that we have to learn to really listen to and appreciate new forms of music.

I do indeed include the concept of sound itself in my definition of music, despite the fact that i didn’t mention it last time. Computers have definitely expanded the range of sounds that can be produced, but so did electric guitars / amplification / synthesizers in previous eras. So i don’t think that computers are forcing us to include sound or anything else in our definition of music. The concept of ‘sound’ has been an important part of music for a long time, and musicians have experimented with sound since long before computers — john cage in the 30s & 40s for example. Perhaps it’s just a matter of degree. It seems that you and joel see it as more of a drastic change that requires a radical re-alignment of our listening skills, whereas i see it as more of a gradual evolution. Computers are expanding the vocabulary of music, but they’re not really changing the definition, in my opinion. Perhaps i’m just being obstinate and contrary.

If you or joel could give some specific examples of ways that you think that computers are changing the language of music, i might be convinced. Dr. Dre keeps coming up. Could you explain to me what it is about him specifically that is representative of this new language of music? And what do you mean by the emotion that is communicated in the sound itself? I can’t quite grasp what you’re trying to say.

I hope Joel and I are not communicating that music itself is something completely different now because of new technologies. I agree that sound has always been a part of the musical language. But I think the focus today is on this “sonic”(?) aspect more than on melody/rhythm/harmony(and yes, John Cage and others ought to be included in this discussion).

Perhaps we should be more specific about what is happening now that wasn’t happening before, though. I think what Joel and I are mostly referring to is the recording arts, rather than just music in general. Innovations in recording techniques are changing the way we hear and understand music. Music is in a new context after the Beatles, Beach Boys, Motown etc. moved it into the studio. Performance skills that used to be honed to perfection before the studio now take on a different spin as the recording process changes the way one thinks of performance to include the work on the computer (maybe Joel can explain this in greater detail).

And the best example I can give for the way sound itself has its own emotional quality is a tip we got from an engineer here in Chicago who said he uses sensations in his own body to discern the frequencies in music he’s hearing. He says that music like Bjork’s Vespertine (and probably most classical music) he can feel—actually feel—up in his head or above the shoulders and that dance and rap music typically hits him below the waist, which he says has something to do with the danceability of the music. Stuff that hits him somewhere in between, like in the chest, is typically rock’n’roll. Now, you can take that as an over-active imagination, but he got that tip from another sound engineer who knows his stuff and I think there’s something to it.

I agree completely that the sonic language is a developing one. It seems to be developing exponentially though. One thing that has happened very recently is that we can record 80 tracks on computer and reverse/copy/past/filter/eq/delay/etc. them very quickly. Some of this was possible 30 years ago but would have taken 100X’s the time. The computer has become a new instrument.

Sounds themselves have meaning. Not inherently, but we learn them. If you make a guitar sound like a speeding car or howling wind it can be scary. I find the sound of a dryer comforting. It can be subjective but I think most people feel angry when they here NIN wall of noise. Perhaps a distinction can be made with the way computers do music: it becomes about manipulating sounds rather than performing them. Its non-linear and hands-on. Notes and charts are all in the imagination.

My favourite Miles davis albums are the ones where the sonic emotions match the performance emotions. I think this is part of the reason ‘Kind of Blue’ is still popular, because the way it was miced and mixed was just as emotional as the performances. Right now the people micing and mixing music are becoming just as artistically important as the people performing.

Dr. Dre is important because he really how to manipulate sound and rhythm. The beat for Mary J Blige’s dance single last year was a good example of his command over the frequency spectrum. Hits ya right in the crotch. Its best heard in a club with some subwoofers though. I know its a newer language because I tried in vain to understand it for a long time. One day it came on in a club I was in and I felt it and understood it.