Skip

"I believe it more than...other...stuff."
October 5, 2011 4:54 AM   Subscribe


 
Very reminiscent (in style and content) of Richard Avedon's The Sixties.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 5:13 AM on October 5, 2011


The lighting is great. Everyone looks really good, and really real.

It's particularly rewarding to see some of the musicians who are really quite old now: to see the lines in the faces, to feel the experience, and the dignity, of people like Ravi Shankar, Ornette Coleman, Dave Brubeck. Cause really, we don't see nearly enough of elderly musicians in the youth-driven and youth-obsessed field which is popular music.

And I'm a little disappointed that Kenny Rogers didn't just say "you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:32 AM on October 5, 2011


I really do hate that editing style and the whole thing seems like it's pitched exactly at people using their iPads in Starbucks but I would gladly suffer through all of that to see the rest of that Lieber and Stoller interview.
posted by unSane at 6:51 AM on October 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


the whole thing seems like it's pitched exactly at people using their iPads in Starbucks

Yeah, once I looked at the app link I got the same sort of cringe. How typically depressing, also, that of all the musicians to choose from, it was (oh god, please, no) the hopelessly vapid Lenny Kravitz that got most of the air time in that promo clip. Well, I guess he's the top *looker* in the bunch? But yeesh, does anyone actually take that guy seriously?

Iggy Pop comes off as eminently likable. And who knew Sinead O'Connor had hair?*

*Actually, for all I know, millions knew. But I hadn't seen anything on her in sooooo long. Has she been active?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:08 AM on October 5, 2011


But yeesh, does anyone actually take that guy seriously?

have you listened to some of the more "worthy" artists promos here? I am totally crazy for many of the musicians' music that are represented here, namely Herbie, Ravi, Glass, Rollins, etc. but unfortunately I realized a while ago that very rarely do musicians (artists, really) have any kind of clue whatsoever what goes into the artistic process - it's like asking a baseball pitcher to describe the kinesiology behind her throw - how could she possibly know that if all she's ever done is throw a ball??

I'm grateful that many lessor known musicians get exposure, I'm grateful the lighting is good, I'm even grateful they are targeting iPads - but I cringe when I listen to my idols try to explain "where" the music they so exquisitely exude comes from in such random fluffy terms, elevating superstition above the discipline (and gene-pool luck) they truly embody.
posted by victors at 8:34 AM on October 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


victors, if you're looking for more on where music comes from* and how it's built, sans superstition, I just finished reading The Music Instinct and it's quite good.

* SPOILER: No one knows for sure! But there's lots of excellent insight and research on display in the book anyway.
posted by echo target at 8:45 AM on October 5, 2011


the whole thing seems like it's pitched exactly at people using their iPads in Starbucks


The horror!

I, for one, will only watch this on an Android tablet, and I will do so in a Seattle's Best Coffee, in the hopes this counts as "keeping it real". Also, I will wear my ironic spectacle frames which have no corrective lenses in them, despite the very real need I have for vision correction. I will do this to ensure I maintain a "lo-fi" aesthetic while consuming this media in the correct manner.
posted by kcds at 8:45 AM on October 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I just finished reading The Music Instinct and it's quite good.

alas, it is only in paper format - i.e. not available for my iPad Kindle app. i.e. it does not exist.
posted by victors at 9:20 AM on October 5, 2011


The Music Instinct blurb begins This book basically concerns itself with music theory

All the music theory in the world won't explain the difference between an inspired masterpiece and an also-ran that's just as accomplished technically.

That what makes the difference between 12-tone-row monstrosities and 'Orpheus and Eurydice' (I'm assiduously avoiding modern comparisons) should be termed "Superstition" reminds me that the Left Brain's propensity to narcissistic delight in it's own cleverness needs to be watched carefully "lest in casting out your demons, you throw out the best part of you."
posted by Twang at 8:12 PM on October 5, 2011


All the music theory in the world won't explain the difference between an inspired masterpiece and an also-ran that's just as accomplished technically.

That isn't music theory's job. Music theory's job is to give you the tools to analyze the difference between those two things. And it's not as if we agree on a categorical difference between the masterpiece and the also-ran. For example, many people consider Mozart's works as genius, whereas for me they're definitely in the 'technically accomplished also ran' camp. So expecting music theory to account for variations of taste is a fools errand. However I can certainly describe for you using terms of music theory, what it is about particular works of Mozart that makes them inferior to, say, certain works of Beethoven. Or, mutatis mutandi, Glenn Cambell vs. Bobby Goldsboro.
posted by unSane at 8:45 PM on October 5, 2011


watching this made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. nicely shot, though.
posted by peterkins at 4:45 AM on October 6, 2011


« Older Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more...   |   Henry Hargreaves: Bacon Alphabet and Toasted Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post