Cyborg K wrote:
However, I do believe that innovation in
form is an essential aspect of all forward thinking music, whether we are
talking about a techno record, or Cecil Taylor, John Coltrane, Pierre
Boulez, Gustav Mahler, John Cage, etc. The desire to return to a
traditional song structure, to "songs I can hum and whistle while I work" is
in my opinion a form of musicial regression.
and then wrote:
The universality of techno's basic rhythm
allows it to a truly universal human phenomenon, something that can be
accessed and understood by humans from all over the globe regardless of race
or creed (which is not to say that individuals cannot bring their own point
of view to any given production.)
First, you're advocating "innovation" and deriding "regression". But
then you advocate "universality" and "basic rhythm". I'd venture to say
that you can't have it both ways.
This aspect of techno's basic rhythm that makes it universal is the same
aspect of traditional song structure that makes it universal (or close
to it. Dave, we both took Dr. Steel's Non-Western music course,
right?...I'm sure we can both think of examples of folk musics that
don't operate in any sort of conventional song structure. Gamelan
music, with its broad gong cycles, comes immediately to mind...) And
that has to do with primal response. The human auditory response that
makes people relate to motoric rhythmic cycles is, in my opinion, the
same one that makes people relate to "songs they can hum and whistle
while they work."
What you've started advocating is a kind of Darmstadt-era
Euro-modernism. But the folks from that crowd wouldn't be caught dead
listening to techno because motor rhythm and cyclic patterning is
fundamentally regressive as well.
At the end of the day, progress and regress don't mean a damn thing to
people who are actually LISTENING. They're buzzwords for academics -
people who operate in the shadows of those who create, scurrying about
trying to glean information from the footprints and napkin sketches of
their more-talented peers.
I'm certainly not knocking the great artists you mentioned above.
Surely, all were innovators. But that's not why they'll be remembered.
They'll be remembered because they made good music. There are plenty of
innovators who exist only in history books. Everyone who studies opera
knows about Lully, Rameau, and Gluck. But does anyone listen to them?
--
Dennis DeSantis
www.dennisdesantis.com
