[MD] (Lack of) Dynamic Quality in Music- Pachelbel Rant

[Mike Craghead]

pholden at davtv.com wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Hannon <stevehannon at gmail.com>:
>
>   
>> If art exhibits Quality then why do people like so many
>> songs with these same (Static) chords?  Any thoughts?    
>>     
>> Lack of educated taste.

"Lack of educated taste."

Pardon me Holden, but ARRRGH!!
Folks who have not studied music to your standard cannot appreciate 
music? Someone who cannot converse about composition and style and line 
and form has a lower quality experience when they view art?

It's just different. "Lowbrow" art may be of low dynamic quality but 
still have static quality that a lot of people respond to. And that is, 
empirically, okay. This was a huge problem for me when reading Lila: 
Site-unseen, Phaedrus completely panned the "cruise ship" performance 
that Lila raved about. What that says to me is, she saw quality in that 
performance, indeed, enough quality that she felt compelled to try to 
convey to Phaedrus how great it was. But of course, like a "you had to 
be there" joke, it doesn't work; you can't express it verbally. So 
Phaedrus dismisses the performance, the performer, and the entire 
audience (Lila included), based on some pretty thin information.

You see art and music through your goggles, and to claim that they are 
better goggles is like claiming that your fingerprints are superior to 
mine. They are different, and that's about the only statement you can 
make without imposing your morality.

This is not to say that there is not music out there that is crappy. 
This is to say that it's not up to you or me to dictate which is crappy. 
If a 15 year old sees quality in something, finds it transformative or 
cathartic, that's what they see through their goggles, and no Phaedrus 
can say anything about it except "that's not for me."

As for "same (Static) chords," there are entire genres built around 
common chord progressions. Blues is not about dynamic chord structure, 
it's power lies elsewhere. Country is often about nailing the canon; 
there is a formula, it is static, and that's okay! The dynamic quality 
is in there, it's just sitting on top of a really solid static 
foundation. "Bad" pop? As much as it pains me to say it, formulaic pop 
CAN have quality. The fact that I don't get it and you don't get it is 
irrelevant. We just lack the perspective. Are we overeducated? 
Undereducated? Improperly educated? Not 15?

Can a critic survive the MOQ?

There, I feel better. Nothing personal, Holden-  you touched a nerve! 
Thanks.

Mike Craghead
humboldtmusic.com
humboldtmusic.com/mc
humboldtmusic.com/sarimike