The Fine Line

zhao

there are no accidents
I was thinking about this while listening to a Paul Bley record - "Open, To Love".

what is interesting is the sometimes fine, but DEFINITE line between this kind of tender, heart-warming music and schmaltzy, kitschy, easy-listening smooth jazz. it is the same line between Brian Eno and New Age music. it is the line that Tangerine Dream crossed around 1982.

hard to define or explain... is it about becoming formulaic? not exactly... is it the difference between (as someone mentioned) expression and signification? maybe.

anyone feel up to the challenge?
 
Last edited:

swears

preppy-kei
Yeah, I know hat you mean, this is part of the reason why it's hard to write about music. Two different acts could have similar influences, ideas and gear and one could sound great and the other shit but you can't really sum it up in words. Maybe it's a question of attitude, and also who did it first. I love Air, but think Zero Seven are absolute shite.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Hmm, its something to do with context (ie with ambient--->New Age is the difference between the near avant-garde -or certainly 70s pop's avant garde, and music for crystal healing) and skill of execution perhaps? I mean there IS a big difference between Air (perverse, synthetic, French, sporadic writers of fantastic basslines) and Zero 7 (dodgy studio engineers-turned-musicians, seemingly obsessed with airbrushed soul)... I was gonna start a similar-ish thread about "cheese" in music, exactly why some particular sound is cheesy or not, is it just the association (ie-contextual), or are there some particular combinations of tone and timbre which are, in the abstract, cheese...? If cheese is merely a series of derided sonic signifiers, then perhaps the problem with Zero 7 is that they handle these "cheesy" elements without the care of Air, they don't attempt to recontextualize them enough, they don't allow us to see say, a lush Rhodes chord, afresh and are content to merely re-state the cliche?
 

mms

sometimes
I was thinking about this while listening to a Paul Bley record.

what is interesting is the sometimes fine, but DEFINITE line between this kind of tender, heart-warming music and schmaltzy, kitschy, easy-listening smooth jazz. it is the same line between Brian Eno and New Age music. it is the line that Tangerine Dream crossed around 1982.

hard to define or explain... is it about becoming formulaic? not exactly... is it the difference between (as someone mentioned) expression and signification? maybe.

anyone feel up to the challenge?

well the new age thing usually comes backed up with pompous claims doesn't it?
revolutionary, life changing healing claims and that.
i think it has to do with a certain guitar sound as well though:)
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Functionally you CAN use Brian Eno to sleep to, and it would probably work fine for crystal healing etc etc, but the reverse is not true....
 

hamarplazt

100% No Soul Guaranteed
Interesting how new age seem to be the one genre that there's absolutely no objective interest in or serious discussion of. Everybody agree that it's not as much crap by definition as it is the definition itself of (a particular kind of) crap. Why not accept that the fine line is simply a line within a particular area of music, rather than between two distinct ones? It's the same kind of line that there is in all genres, between the good stuff and the derivative, lazy or watered down productions. Beauty and banality have always been very close.

And for the record, while I'm not defending the "crystal healing" crap, there's actually a lot of great music that is certainly and without a doubt "new age". Records by Roedelius, Popol Vuh and Deuter, or artists like Stephan Micus, Peter Michael Hamel and Michael Stearns. Even Kitaro made some brilliant early records.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
I think the difference between cheesy and good in the realm of music that is perceived to be "sentimental" or reflective or tender and sweet, is a little bit of a specific difference which is part of a larger quality debate, but also distinct from it.

Eric Satie is so amazing but the work of his countless imitators, besides being derivative, just sounds bad.

the more I think about it, the more I'm into the Signification versus Expression train of thought (first brought up by... I forget whom... mms? in response to Gek's post regarding emotionalism).

it is the difference between actual embodiment and mere representation; a film evoling the feeling of sadness rather than the main character stating: "I am sad."

it is the difference between first hand, immediate, sensory experiential meaning, and meaning derived from symbolic language.

.... to be continued...
 
Top