What's good?

[Dan Warburton]

Dan, I'd ask you "In what matters of taste would you confidently assert an objective good/bad?"

This is the single most interesting question in the world of music for me right now. We've reached a point where traditional language-based analysis of music (component parameters - pitch, rhythm, timbre, dynamics etc - being compared, explicitly or not, to linguistic elements.. cf Deryck Cooke, Lenny Bernstein etc etc) no longer works, and I wonder what can replace it. "Traditional" analysis of tonal music, especially using Schenkerian models, allows theorists to state objectively that such and such a move is "better", more coherent with the deep structure (Urlinie); similarly atonal music theorists since Allen Forte have been struggling with a set system (cf Forte's K /Kh complexes) that might allow them to make similar statements about non-tonal music (early 20th century onwards). But both systems of analysis depend on the existence of a notated (traditionally notated that is, Treatise doesn't count!) score; in effect, music theorists analyse scores, not pieces of music.. (anecdote: as a grad student at Eastman in 86 Bob Morris - now Professor of Composition - gave us a photocopy of a Babbitt song, "The Widow's Lament" I think, and asked to write an analysis of it for the next class; when I asked him if a recording of the song was available to listen in the Sibley Library, he said 'you won't need that'..)

But what do we do when there's no score - or, as is the case with much of the music we like here, there's little pitch and rhythm either? With EFI-style improv I think it is possible to tell when it's really happening and when it's a struggle - compare SME's Quintessence, for example, with the ICP 005 bunfight between Bailey and Tchicai - improvisers and listeners alike know when it's aflame, and can tell when it's going out of focus..
With EAI it's much more problematic - how to explain why Jon Abbey and I disagree so fundamentally on Absinth, say, which I think is terrific; and yet we both agree on Printer? I could also mention Guionnet's MAP, which I like and he doesn't, or the Sweet Cuts disc from Korea, which I can't find my way into at all but you all seem to love.
Why? Your thoughts?

[jon abbey]

With EFI-style improv I think it is possible to tell when it's really happening and when it's a struggle - compare SME's Quintessence, for example, with the ICP 005 bunfight between Bailey and Tchicai - improvisers and listeners alike know when it's aflame, and can tell when it's going out of focus..
With EAI it's much more problematic - how to explain why Jon Abbey and I disagree so fundamentally on Absinth, say, which I think is terrific; and yet we both agree on Printer? I could also mention Guionnet's MAP, which I like and he doesn't, or the Sweet Cuts disc from Korea, which I can't find my way into at all but you all seem to love.
Why? Your thoughts?

I don't think there's much difference between EFI and EAI in this regard, I'm sure I could pick similar examples from EFI (you like Misha Mengelberg much more than I ever did, for instance).

[J.F.]

When it comes to objectively not good, the first name for me popping up is Eddie Prevost. The majority here would disagree and think that's non-sense (and this Eddie, I believe ~43 years ago, already wrote my standards likely just aren't appropriate).

I guess I just have my own objective criterions and I'm curious how this thread develops.



edit:
Oh - and that statement is actually more about "objectively good" than about pointing out (again) how I dislike this Eddie - he's just one example (who created his own response to criticism, coming in handily for this topic).

[Dan Warburton]

(you like Misha Mengelberg much more than I ever did, for instance).

Sure, but with Misha you know when he's playing a "wrong" note, because you have prior knowledge of what the "right" note is supposed to be. That's what I was saying about language above; with EAI it's not always that easy (I'm not talking about "funny" bits, which we discussed in another thread btw), because we have no established common notion of musical syntax.

[skrobek]

Naming goes agreat length towards establishing common notions of musical syntax. If we're talking Sachiko-M like stuff, we basically know what to expect.

Are the "abstract scratching, rubbing noise, metallic scraping, electronic interferences and glitches" (Keith Rowe) well chosen ? Are they layered artfully as to create a sense of overall structure ?

If yes I guess it's good music in that style, an improvisation that's agreeable to follow.

The degree of standardisation in the sounds and structures (fading layers in and out, introducing new layers more or less regularly, withdrawing a layer brutally to reveal the undergoing layer of sound as it has been evolving, just as in techno) makes it quite possible to say that a track is "well done", such as Sweet Cuts Distant Curves.

I think this record comes back as an exemple because everybody enjoys it, but there's really not that much to say about it. It's like everyone knows that it's possible to talk about such a release today as an album of jazz standards without the standards, the moves are well executed. Well done. Good stuff.

A lot more excitement is generated by stuff that could potentially be bullshit because the listener is still trying to figure about what it is before deciding if it's good.

Like ten years ago at L'Oeil Du Silence when each A Bruit Secret release came out, a lot more went into deciding what the guys were actually doing and why rather in founding a musical judgement. I re-read some Dream Warriors reviews from that time and they're not really judgemental. (this last paragraph more for Dan or the French connection in general)

Today everytime I talk with some jazz guys about so-called eai music they wonder why I'm not tired of it, because they assume free music in general has absorbed and digested the liminarity of most of this music, taken its lessons in, while the style in itself is going through a phase quite similar to what electronica went through in the ninetees. It informed electronic music in general, changed the pace of most poppish music worldwide, but the thing in itself as a hardcore thing has died.

[jon abbey]

one issue with electroacoustic music is the playback system of the listener, which becomes more of a factor than with acoustic music.

[skrobek]

one issue with electroacoustic music is the playback system of the listener, which becomes more of a factor than with acoustic music.

which would make it the most elitist music ever, stating that it's not your socio-cultural milieu that makes you unable to understand it when you hear it, but your financial means ?

[jon abbey]

which would make it the most elitist music ever, stating that it's not your socio-cultural milieu that makes you unable to understand it when you hear it, but your financial means ?

no one's talking about audiophile systems. dan asked why there's (in his opinion) a wider range of opinions on EAI, and IMO this is one reason. headphones as opposed to speakers, MP3s as opposed to CDs, there are wider differences than there are with acoustic music.

[skrobek]

which would make it the most elitist music ever, stating that it's not your socio-cultural milieu that makes you unable to understand it when you hear it, but your financial means ?

no one's talking about audiophile systems. dan asked why there's (in his opinion) a wider range of opinions on EAI, and IMO this is one reason. headphones as opposed to speakers, MP3s as opposed to CDs, there are wider differences than there are with acoustic music.

Well, it's true that the recording will sound much differe'nt from a system to another...

But there's not really a solution is there ? What many do is try out the masters on as many different systems as possible and take notes...

[jon abbey]

\Well, it's true that the recording will sound much differe'nt from a system to another...

But there's not really a solution is there ? What many do is try out the masters on as many different systems as possible and take notes...

some people do this, including myself, but I doubt "many", meaning a sizable percentage of listeners, do.

anyway, I don't even agree with Dan's thesis, I'm just giving a possible, very basic reason why that might be the case. what's amusing is you're both agreeing with me and giving me shit. I could write "the sky is blue" at this point, and it would likely send you into a frenzy.

[mudd]

ok. this is staying pertinent to the topic, right?

m

[skrobek]

\Well, it's true that the recording will sound much differe'nt from a system to another...

But there's not really a solution is there ? What many do is try out the masters on as many different systems as possible and take notes...

some people do this, including myself, but I doubt "many", meaning a sizable percentage of listeners, do.

No, I meant producers, to make sure that every system stays as faithful as possible to what they intended the recording to sound like, not betray too much.

what's amusing is you're both agreeing with me and giving me shit. I could write "the sky is blue" at this point, and it would likely send you into a frenzy.

heh. makes us pretty reliable I guess.

I know it can happen to misunderstand how good something is because it hasn't been played at the right volume, so playback systems can be a prt of it too yeah...

(and you're more prone to say 'My sky is blue but you're sky is cloudy' anyways)

[howsthatsound]

what's good?

depends who's listening.

anyone who says differently is selling something.

[rlrds]

- how to explain why Jon Abbey and I disagree so fundamentally on Absinth, say, which I think is terrific;

Just curious, what does Mr. Abbey find problematic about Absinth? We're talking about the Grob release right?
I thought this recording was very nice indeed. (Don't worry, I won't take your opinion as a personal offense to my own sensibilities. One time I told this guy that Cat Power sucked and he literally wanted to go to fisticuffs like I insulted his mother or something. Really confusing.)

[faster]

I think Tilbury is outrageously sensitive on Absinth, finding tonal ways to play with Sachiko's sine notes that I've never heard anyone else approach. I don't own it anymore and don't remember the rest of it all that well, but there's definitely something to like.

Sorry, back to the topic at hand...

Are the "abstract scratching, rubbing noise, metallic scraping, electronic interferences and glitches" (Keith Rowe) well chosen ? Are they layered artfully as to create a sense of overall structure ?

I think that's basically how people judge this stuff, but it's not the least bit "objective." Substituting "well chosen" or "artful" for "good" is apples for apples.

One of the questions in the Addlimb questionnaire was "How do you evaluate an improvisation? What is it, according to you, that makes one improvisation better than another?" (the link goes to a page with a lot of responses to that single question, but the other questions are also interesting).

EDIT: Cat Power sucks

[William Hutson]

what i think jon is saying is something that i've thought a lot about with respect to noise music. when a piece of music's identifying characteristics are melody, rhythm, lyrics, etc, then they can remain relatively unaffected (to the ears of a casual listener) when played at different volumes and on different systems. when timbre is, more or less, the only musical aspect an artist is dealing with, their music is subject to vast difference based on the audience's listening situation. this is such an issue, i think, in Wall Noise, where timbre is, quite literally, the only thing there is in the music-- the only aspect which differentiates one piece from another. The same Wall Noise tape will sound like two completely different pieces on two different stereos. in one case it could be amazing, and the other, it could sound completely limp and uninteresting. i mean, you could run 'rubber soul' through a bandpass filter, transfer it to wax cylinder and play it on on a broken car stereo and it would still be identifiable as 'rubber soul.' This is not the case with noise or eai, and it makes critical consensus on these musics very difficult. We're all, in some ways, listening to totally different pieces of music depending on our systems.

[Richard Pinnell]

The fact that something sounds different when played via different stereos / bitrates / heaphones is just a side issue to Dan's original question though, and perhaps doesn't help at all. If someone plays all of their music via 128kpbs Mp3 files through a really poor set of speakers they will still like certain albums more than others, and if you gave the exact same set-up to another person they will quite likely form different opinions again.

The problem lies with the criteria used to decide "good" or "bad", and for each of us this will be different as our individual tastes are made up of many different deciding factors, things we find interesting, biases we hold (both consciously and unconsciously) and past experiences we have had. I'm amazed Dan felt the need to ask the question really, its one asked so many times throughout history and one that cannot be answered.

[Jesse]

... the question...that cannot be answered.

[rlrds]

The problem lies with the criteria used to decide "good" or "bad", and for each of us this will be different as our individual tastes are made up of many different deciding factors, things we find interesting, biases we hold (both consciously and unconsciously) and past experiences we have had. I'm amazed Dan felt the need to ask the question really, its one asked so many times throughout history and one that cannot be answered.

Yeah, well said.

[the bird]

What's good will always depend to different things, for example: the context, the listener, the music itself, the musician, technique....
There are too many factors to be considered that it becomes practically impossible to tell in absolutes what is good and what not IMO.
I still believe that it is a very interesting question though.