no commercial potential pt 2.

I wrote

>>> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16929
>>>
>>> Put simply abstract music is not popular. Songs
>>> and music people can dance to are popular.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> The other big one is dance. If music does not
>>> make human limbs and torsos want move in a rhythmic
>>> way it only succeeds in conveying a general emotion
>>> or if words are included ideas will however be
>>> communicated.

Paul Erlich responded:

>> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16952
>>
>> A general emotion? I don't know what that means,
>> but I've seen huge audiences transfixed during
>> long non-danceable, lyricless segments of many
>> bands such as Phish. Being in a danceable band
>> myself, I know that our non-danceable numbers are
>> enjoyed with as much appreciation as the danceable
>> ones -- people appreciate the chance to rest their
>> bodies and use their heads instead.

Monz wrote,

>Whoa!! Hold on there, Justin! In agreement with
>Paul, I must add that my favorite composer (most folks
>here already know this...) is Mahler, and if anyone's
>music is abstract, it's *his*!

Mahler is abstract and he is falls under that big umbrella most people
inaccuratlely call classical. Even the classical big guns Bach, Beethoven &
Mozart don't sell a fraction of the records that Britney Spears does.

How many serious living composers are actually making a decent living out
side of Academia. There are a few perhaps but could you call them popular ?
Perhaps I should define what I mean by popular-"having record sales equal
to or above any top 40 chart dweller."

>And I'm far from alone in my admiration: Mahler is
>today one of the most popular composers ever. If
>you'd like to see evidence that some people are far
>more fanatical about him than even I am, take a
>look at this:

The reason I brought all this up was in relation to what Neil Haverstick
was saying about why us microtonalists are not being played on radio etc.

I can see a valid point there though perhaps we shouldn't be trying to get
our music onto pop radio staions or MTV but should instead pursue community
radio or classical stations.
However it is likely that Mahler would probably get the nod over you and
myself because he isn't into "weird" tunings like us.

>You have to be really careful about making sweeping blanket
>statements about what makes music popular.

Generalisations make communication relatively brief.Imagine how long my
post would have been had I qualified everything I said ! But I take your
point.

> In this day and age,
>people have access to everything that's ever been written, and
>tastes vary accordingly. I personally really dig music that
>"sounds out of tune", and I bet Dan Stearns does too!

I like music that "sounds out of tune" too ! But you can bet your bottom
dollar that I won't be including these recording on any of my demos [just
the sweet 7 limit just tunes all the rest will be for afficiandos only.]

Justin White

DAVID JONES LIMITED ACN 000 074 573

This email and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for
the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose
or use the information contained in it. If you have received this email in
error, please tell us immediately by return email and delete the document.

The contents and any attachments are the opinion of the sender and not
necessarily that of David Jones Limited.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16983
>
> ...
> Mahler is abstract and he is falls under that big umbrella
> most people inaccuratlely call classical. Even the classical
> big guns Bach, Beethoven & Mozart don't sell a fraction of
> the records that Britney Spears does.

True, and a very good point. I hate to put it this way, but
I think the main reason is because they don't have the boobs
that Britney has. My point: there are lots of other reasons
why certain artists sell much more than others that have
absolutely nothing to do with the music.

John Rockwell quoted (in _All-American Music_) the saying that
"If radio stations would simply play Webern as often as they
play Christopher Cross, he would sell as many records", and
I believe there's an element of truth in that.

I don't have time to respond to this in more detail, but
let's be very thankful that the internet provides us with
opportunities to hear and learn about music that we'd probably
never be exposed to otherwise.

> I can see a valid point there though perhaps we shouldn't
> be trying to get our music onto pop radio staions or MTV but
> should instead pursue community radio or classical stations.
> However it is likely that Mahler would probably get the nod
> over you and myself because he isn't into "weird" tunings
> like us.

Well... I've pointed out here before that most of Mahler's
music (all of his really important work) is written for
*orchestra*, which is *not* in a fixed tuning! I'm actively
exploring the possibilities of presenting electronic versions
of Mahler's symphonies in non-12-tET.

I suppose to a great extent I'm just playing "devil's advocate"
in arguing against your points. Actually, I do agree with
you that "general" listeners don't know a piece's tuning from
a hole in the ground, and probably care even less. And I
definitely agree that microtonal music is already all around
us - all we have to do is wake up our ears and listen. I heard
Jimi Hendrix for decades before I ever realized that he was
one of the finest microtonal masters who ever lived.

-monz

> > Mahler is abstract and he is falls under that big umbrella
> > most people inaccuratlely call classical. Even the classical
> > big guns Bach, Beethoven & Mozart don't sell a fraction of
> > the records that Britney Spears does.
> True, and a very good point. I hate to put it this way, but
> I think the main reason is because they don't have the boobs
> that Britney has. My point: there are lots of other reasons
> why certain artists sell much more than others that have
> absolutely nothing to do with the music.

For every Britney Spears there are thousands of very attractive young women
with absolutely no musical talent whatsoever :-). I think if you look
beneath the surface of nearly any popular hit recording artist, you will
find both *real* musical talent and a will and drive to succeed. It *is* a
competitive business. Even in the relatively free world of folk music, it
took Peter, Paul and Mary to make a star out of Bob Dylan's songwriting
talent. He could not have done it on his own performing skills at the time.

> John Rockwell quoted (in _All-American Music_) the saying that
> "If radio stations would simply play Webern as often as they
> play Christopher Cross, he would sell as many records", and
> I believe there's an element of truth in that.

The fact is that Webern is not played very much at all, much less than
Shostakovich, for example, and almost inconsequential among 20th century
composers relative to Copland, Prokofiev and Stravinsky. In fact, I hear
more music by living composers than I do from Webern. Classical music is a
competitive business too :-). I don't know what Christopher Cross has done
lately, but I'd guess he isn't doing very well relative to Britney Spears
and Ricky Martin. If I want to listen to Webern, I pretty much have to get a
CD; my classical station isn't going to play it.

> > I can see a valid point there though perhaps we shouldn't
> > be trying to get our music onto pop radio staions or MTV but
> > should instead pursue community radio or classical stations.
> > However it is likely that Mahler would probably get the nod
> > over you and myself because he isn't into "weird" tunings
> > like us.

I have *never* heard a microtonal piece on my local classical station. I
have never heard an electronic piece, with the exception of the Turangalila
symphony of Messiaen, which features a prominent solo part for the ondes
martinot. Even so, it was not a recording but two separate orchestra concert
broadcasts in the past two months.

They *do* play a lot more 20th century music than most classical stations,
though. Right now, they're going through the top 100 works as chosen by the
listeners, and they're up to about 13, which turns out to be Symphony #5 by
Shostakovich. I don't know what the next ones are going to be, but I'm
pretty sure that among them will be the Schubert Trout Quintet, Beethoven's
Ninth, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, and Appalachian Spring. Mahler had at least
two symphonies in the top 100; if anyone is interested, the URL is
http://kbps.org/100_picks2000a.htm

--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com/

"There's No Fuel Like an Old Fuel" -- National Coal Institute

Justin, in 1972 the chart-topping albums included extremely cerebral, long
pieces of music by Jethro Tull and Yes. This was essentially the end of the
60's, a time when the shifts in music were so great that the record industry
could do nothing but sit back and watch the cash roll in. Within a couple of
years, the music industry saw this strategy failing, and with most of the
executives avidly snorting coke, a new, aggressive marketing strategy took
hold. Ever since, the industry manufactures hits through a combination of
market research, formulaic songwriters, sexy singers, slick producers, and
total dominance over the dissemination of product through radio and MTV.

>Perhaps I should define what I mean by popular-"having record sales equal
>to or above any top 40 chart dweller."

Sorry if I refuse to submit myself to the artistic dismemberment that
constitutes the requirements for being "popular" these days. I make music
that people enjoy -- dare I say, even the majority of people (judging from
responses when playing on the street or in bars). Your example is Britney
Spears. Walk into any deli, shopping mall, dance club, or turn on your TV,
and you're saturated with Britney Spears. If you're in the largest
record-buying demographic, the pre- and early-teen, the slickness and
sexuality and catchiness, and that fact that all the cool magazines and TV
stars are associated with it, may well influence your decision to purchase
this material, to put it mildly. Forgive me if I aspire to something a
little higher.

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:
>
> Justin, in 1972 the chart-topping albums included extremely cerebral, long
> pieces of music by Jethro Tull and Yes. This was essentially the end of the
> 60's, a time when the shifts in music were so great that the record industry
> could do nothing but sit back and watch the cash roll in.

Sorry Paul. 1972 was definitely part of the '70s.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16994
>
> > [me, monz]
> > I think the main reason is because they [Beethoven, Bach,
> > Mozart et al.] don't have the boobs that Britney [Spears]
> > has. My point: there are lots of other reasons why certain
> > artists sell much more than others that have absolutely
> > nothing to do with the music.
>
> For every Britney Spears there are thousands of very
> attractive young women with absolutely no musical talent
> whatsoever :-). I think if you look beneath the surface
> of nearly any popular hit recording artist, you will find
> both *real* musical talent and a will and drive to succeed.
> It *is* a competitive business.

Right you are, Ed. Having spent many years in the business
myself, I can say that one of the main reasons I dropped out
of it is that I don't think I have the competitive spirit
that it takes to succeed, if luck doesn't make it happen soon
enough.

> > [me, monz]
> > John Rockwell quoted (in _All-American Music_) the saying that
> > "If radio stations would simply play Webern as often as they
> > play Christopher Cross, he would sell as many records", and
> > I believe there's an element of truth in that.
>
> The fact is that Webern is not played very much at all, much
> less than Shostakovich, for example, and almost inconsequential
> among 20th century composers relative to Copland, Prokofiev
> and Stravinsky. In fact, I hear more music by living composers
> than I do from Webern. Classical music is a competitive business
> too :-). I don't know what Christopher Cross has done lately,
> but I'd guess he isn't doing very well relative to Britney
> Spears and Ricky Martin. If I want to listen to Webern, I
> pretty much have to get a CD; my classical station isn't going
> to play it.

You have to realize that the reference to Christopher Cross
is reflective of the time Rockwell's book was published, around
1983. Cross was indeed quite popular back then. Anyway, the
point is the same: you're going to hear a lot more Britney or
Ricky on the radio today than you will Webern, or even Beethoven
for that matter.

I think the comments Paul Erlich made about this thread hit
the nail on the head.

-monz

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:
>
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16983

Even the classical big guns Bach,
Beethoven & Mozart don't sell a fraction of the records that Britney
Spears does.
>
True, but you can get them to hang around a little longer, so over
time, who knows (??)

__________ ______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
>
>
> "Paul H. Erlich" wrote:
> >
> > Justin, in 1972 the chart-topping albums included extremely
cerebral, long pieces of music by Jethro Tull and Yes. This was
essentially the end of the 60's, a time when the shifts in music were
so great that the record industry could do nothing but sit back and
watch the cash roll in.
>
> Sorry Paul. 1972 was definitely part of the '70s.
>

Ummm... in certain "smoke filled" rooms, 1972 was still part of the
'60's. But few can remember...
_________ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Paul H. Erlich" wrote:
> > >
> > > Justin, in 1972 the chart-topping albums included extremely
> cerebral, long pieces of music by Jethro Tull and Yes. This was
> essentially the end of the 60's, a time when the shifts in music were
> so great that the record industry could do nothing but sit back and
> watch the cash roll in.
> >
> > Sorry Paul. 1972 was definitely part of the '70s.
> >
>
> Ummm... in certain "smoke filled" rooms, 1972 was still part of the
> '60's. But few can remember...

Smoke wasn't filling my room yet, but I was already listening
to my older sisters albums. I wonder what Paul was listening
to in 1972. Paul?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Well my "local classical station" played Partch on Sunday lunchtime,
together with Copland, Ellington, Reich and Glass; then there was
Ireland and Bach in the afternoon, and Boyce, Debussy, Pleyel, Bach,
Musgrave, Berners, Haydn, Vivaldi and Milhaud over breakfast and the
morning. Last Thursday there was Antheil, but there has not been any
Webern since Christmas Day (Pieces for Cello, 1899)....

Perhaps you need to move to a civilised part of the world? :-)

and yes, there has been electronic, electro-acoustic, Tibetan chant,
Poul Ruders, Kagel, Martland, Sally Beamish, Judith Bingham and so on.
Even Peter Schickele in the night.

==John ffitch
 -=- MIME -=- 

--ZJkBLFGQLbSD01fXeJo4qJi0IJMCx2e3MPqAITY
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The email address used to send your message is not subscribed to this
group. If you are a member of this group, please be aware that you may
only send messages to this group using the email address(es) you have
registered with eGroups. eGroups allows you to send messages
using the email address you originally used to register, or an alternate
email address you specify in your personal settings.

If you would like to subscribe to this group:
1. visit
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/tuning
-OR-
2. send email to tuning-subscribe@egroups.com

If you would like to specify an alternate email address:
1. visit
http://www.egroups.com/myprofile
2. click the "Edit Profile" button
3. type your alternate email address in the area labeled "Alternate
email addresses".
4. click the "Save Changes" button
5. wait approximately 10 minutes for the change to take effect

After you follow these steps, you will be able to send messages
to all your groups using this alternate email address.

For further assistance, please email support@egroups.com
or visit http://www.egroups.com/help

--ZJkBLFGQLbSD01fXeJo4qJi0IJMCx2e3MPqAITY
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: (qmail 68983 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2001 18:20:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2001 18:20:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO codemist.uk.ceorl.tc) (195.153.6.24)
by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2001 18:20:54 -0000
Received: from montague.codemist.tc (jpff@ppp-1-96.cvx5.telinco.net [212.1.152.96])
by codemist.uk.ceorl.tc (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f02IJqd07803
for <tuning@egroups.com>; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:19:54 GMT
Received: (from jpff@localhost)
by montague.codemist.tc (8.9.3/8.8.5) id SAA00176;
Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:14:25 GMT
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 21:24:08 +0000
Message-ID: <5832-Mon01Jan2001212408+0000@jpff>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.0.91.1 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 Q)
From: jpff@codemist.tc
To: tuning@egroups.com
In-reply-to: <LKEPKGEPDEPPFBKPANEEEEJNCBAA.znmeb@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: no commercial potential pt 2.
References: <LKEPKGEPDEPPFBKPANEEEEJNCBAA.znmeb@teleport.com>

Well my "local classical station" played Partch on Sunday lunchtime,
together with Copland, Ellington, Reich and Glass; then there was
Ireland and Bach in the afternoon, and Boyce, Debussy, Pleyel, Bach,
Musgrave, Berners, Haydn, Vivaldi and Milhaud over breakfast and the
morning. Last Thursday there was Antheil, but there has not been any
Webern since Christmas Day (Pieces for Cello, 1899)....

Perhaps you need to move to a civilised part of the world? :-)

and yes, there has been electronic, electro-acoustic, Tibetan chant,
Poul Ruders, Kagel, Martland, Sally Beamish, Judith Bingham and so on.
Even Peter Schickele in the night.

==John ffitch

--ZJkBLFGQLbSD01fXeJo4qJi0IJMCx2e3MPqAITY--

Well, John they do want to do Partch in England (I'll be doing Dark Brother
on March 22nd with the AFMM Ensemble at the Barbican Centre). But if we all
move to the most civilized part of the world, who will hold down the fort
against the barbarians?

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@egroups.com, J.P.FFITCH@M... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17125

> Well my "local classical station" played Partch on Sunday lunchtime,
> together with Copland, Ellington, Reich and Glass; then there was
> Ireland and Bach in the afternoon, and Boyce, Debussy, Pleyel, Bach,
> Musgrave, Berners, Haydn, Vivaldi and Milhaud over breakfast and the
> morning. Last Thursday there was Antheil, but there has not been
any Webern since Christmas Day (Pieces for Cello, 1899)....
>
> Perhaps you need to move to a civilised part of the world? :-)
>
> and yes, there has been electronic, electro-acoustic, Tibetan chant,
> Poul Ruders, Kagel, Martland, Sally Beamish, Judith Bingham and so
on.
> Even Peter Schickele in the night.
>

Well, that's nice, but by this definition New York is not civilized.
Maybe it isn't. There has been a remarkable development over the
last 10 or 15 years in New York radio where contemporary and even
ANY CLASSICAL music has been practically eliminated. I got more
stations on my brief visit to Michigan, mostly coming from Canada.

The problem is, quite frankly, New York real estate, and stations
have to be commercial. That's why WNCN changed overnight from a
station playing continuous incipid Vivaldi (the most tolerable
"classical" music for the masses) to heavy metal... with no warning!

Practically the only New York station playing anything of interest
today is WNYC, because it's state sponsored, and the state has
threatened to "pull the plug" time and again...
_______ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> Practically the only New York station playing anything of interest
> today is WNYC, because it's state sponsored, and the state has
> threatened to "pull the plug" time and again...

You don't listen to WKCR????

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17144

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > Practically the only New York station playing anything of interest
> > today is WNYC, because it's state sponsored, and the state has
> > threatened to "pull the plug" time and again...
>
> You don't listen to WKCR????
>
Ok... that's fine too but, technically, it's a student station...
lovable, though...

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Paul H. Erlich" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Justin, in 1972 the chart-topping albums included extremely
> > cerebral, long pieces of music by Jethro Tull and Yes. This was
> > essentially the end of the 60's, a time when the shifts in music were
> > so great that the record industry could do nothing but sit back and
> > watch the cash roll in.
> > >
> > > Sorry Paul. 1972 was definitely part of the '70s.
> > >
> >
> > Ummm... in certain "smoke filled" rooms, 1972 was still part of the
> > '60's. But few can remember...
>
> Smoke wasn't filling my room yet, but I was already listening
> to my older sisters albums. I wonder what Paul was listening
> to in 1972. Paul?

Just my mom's heartbeat and other internal sounds for the first half of the year. Anyway, what's
your point? That by a strict calendar definition, 1972 was not part of the 60's? Well, in terms of
the music business, 1972 was much more akin with 1966 than with 1976. That's all I meant.

..yes I was little tongue-in-cheek as my local classical station is
Radio3, the slightly dumbed-down descendent of the Third Program.

Actually the other thing I was going to say was that from the Partch I
heard I was at a total loss to understand why you guys go on about
him. Perhaps it was the wrong piece, but it seemed very uninspired.

I doubt that I will be able to get to London on a Thursday in March,
even if we have a train system again, as that is during term. So what
should I listen to so I can understand why you take him seriously?

==John ffitch

--- In tuning@egroups.com, J.P.FFITCH@M... wrote:
So what
> should I listen to so I can understand why you take him seriously?
>
> ==John ffitch

Wind Song

J.P.FFITCH@maths.bath.ac.uk wrote:
>
> ..yes I was little tongue-in-cheek as my local classical station is
> Radio3, the slightly dumbed-down descendent of the Third Program.
>
> Actually the other thing I was going to say was that from the Partch I
> heard I was at a total loss to understand why you guys go on about
> him. Perhaps it was the wrong piece, but it seemed very uninspired.
>
> I doubt that I will be able to get to London on a Thursday in March,
> even if we have a train system again, as that is during term. So what
> should I listen to so I can understand why you take him seriously?

All of it. He was a major composer of microtonal music
in the 20th century.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17234

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, J.P.FFITCH@M... wrote:
>
> > So what should I listen to so I can understand why you
> > [Tuning List members in general] take him [Partch] seriously?
>
> Wind Song

I second that. _Wind Song_ (also known as _Daphne of the Dunes_
in the film version) is probably the most beautiful and evocative
piece Partch wrote.

_Knock On Any Door_ is another which I find evocative.

Some of the most original, which I personally find to be very
inspired, are _Barstow_ and _U.S. Highball_, both from
_The Wayward_.

_The Dreamer That Remains_ is also very original and a great
summary of his life in some respects (it was his last piece)
... I recommend experiencing it in the film version.

And my own favorites are his earliest pieces, the _17 Lyrics
from Li-Po_. These pieces to me capture the essence of all
the corporealism he wrote about in his book in a way that
I don't think he ever quite achieved again later.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, J.P.FFITCH@M... wrote:

> > So what should I listen to so I can understand why you
> > take him seriously?
> >
> > ==John ffitch
>
>
> Wind Song

It also goes by the name of _Daphne of the Dunes_, in the version
which Partch adapted to the Madeleine Tourtelot film.

And I second Jacky's opinion - this is one of my very fav
Partch pieces.

Also well worth listening to, despite the ancient sound quality,
is Partch's own recordings of his "17 Lyrics from Li-Po", available
these days on the great _Enclosure 2_ 4-CD set. Good music
libraries should have it.

-monz