woohoo. finally got my rejection letter from Strange Horizons today.
the thing about rejections i've found is that they release you from worrying about things that you basically have no control over and let you worry about things that you, ostensibly, do.
for me, it's the five stories i have in the works that have each met with possibly fatal deadends in my headspace and, well, work. i.e., the rest of my life.
*
Mabel and i spent Friday night at Rockestra II. while i have my usual gripes about the thing (as per usual, the production wasn't quite up to par with the requirements of the situation, with either the orchestra or the guitar solos being effectively drowned-out most of the time, relegating both to vague background noises that barely break into the conscious level of the listening ear), we had, in the end, a rocking good time of it.
i find myself, however, questioning the idea that the concert provides evidence of the "non-existence" of the "boundary" between classical and contemporary music. even the orchestral crescendoes provided by a few of the arrangements (most notably the closing sections of Urbandub's arrangements and the brief moments in the Itchyworms' performance when the orchestra provided the instrumental backdrop for the songs, as in the opening stanzas of Akin Ka Na Lang), were, i would argue, merely showcases of the merits and general viability of orchestral arrangement in decidedly "contemporary" (read: rock) compositions.
which is not to say that the subtle blending of the rock band and the orchestra in places were not worthy of note. the symphonic backdrop for updharmadown's performance, for instance, produced such an intimate melding of the two components that it's hard to imagine the songs as having ever been without the solid ambient foundations provided by the orchestral sound.
what i agree the whole event does prove is that good music is good music, whatever the format of presentation, whether it's a three-piece band or a fifty-odd piece orchestra. which some listeners may find amounts to the same thing.
the orchestral bits were provided by the Manila Symphony Orchestra, and the six bands that performed that night were 6-Cycle Mind, Urbandub, Hale, the Itchyworms, Updharmadown, and the Dawn. all the performances were brilliant, if only for providing the audience with an undeniably good time.
9 comments:
Sorry to hear about that, man. At least the waiting is over and you can get back to work. :-)
exactly. *eric idle sings: always look on the bright side of life...*
dude, i'm not entirely sure i get what you mean about questioning the 'nonexistence' of 'boundaries'--i can always lean over and grab you by the lapels and shake you and ask you 'what the hell are you talking about?'--but i'll be mr congeniality and say, minus the necessary qualifiers, that yes, good music is good music.
that's why seeing kanye west's 'live and orchestral at abbey road' just about killed me when i saw it some months ago.
it might make more sense if you click the link. then again, it might not.
a more thorough explanation and argument would probably require formal schooling in the musical arts, or maybe simply a clear definition of the terms... which i don't have and am currently too lazy to google-up.
feel free to reach over and shake my lapels. make sure i've got my coat on, though, or else i won't have lapels.
ha.
however, i do feel i should probably add one qualifier to the rather pretentious sounding "good music is good music" line... which is to say, it's also in the ear of the listener to decide that, imho.
which is my whole juxt (to steal a line from amis fils stealing a line from delillo): the presence or absence of boundaries is in the eye of the beholder. but of course, it gets pretty hairy, so let's not get into that.
maybe that's why i've been too busy reciting mea culpas for having dissed pop a lot during my pretentious indie/obscure-rock phase, when i didn't know any better. pop is good, pop is fun.
and i'm being incoherent again.
well, the boundaries themselves result from clear definitions of what is "contemporary" and what is "classical", i.e., genre definitions, ergo, the boundaries between genres is not necessarily "in the eye of the beholder", although the appreciation of one genre over another is.
i was (am) contesting the fact that the concert serves as evidence for "erasing" said boundaries as created by such genre definitions because that sort of thing would necessitate re-definition, which the concert doesn't do.
okay, here we go. a few quick points, which may or may not have anything to do with the subject.
--the dadaists, the surrealists, the postmodernists (and i'm talking about the trailblazers, not the crank-turners) &c were serious about breaking down the divide between 'high art' and 'low art.' their respective agendas were both political and esthetic. whether they were successful is a matter of interpretation. still, there was some blurring of the traditional boundaries.
--who is the authority who gets to make the 'clear definitions' on what is classical or contemporary? who says he/she is the authority?
--there can be such a thing as 'contemporary classical music.'
--i guess the entire point you're trying to raise is: putting orchestral arrangement to what is labeled pop music doesn't constitute a blurring of whatever boundaries. the point of divergence is--you question whether that concert provides any evidence of the alleged breakdown of musical boundaries; meanwhile i question whether a concert like this should carry the burden of proof for any boundary-blurring in the first place.
we could go on and on, finessing various points, and perhaps all our arguments could be perfectly valid, and for all we know we could be talking about the same thing all along, but i've already taken up so much space here.
er, in which case we're not arguing about anything... we're raising totally different points.
in fact, i agree with your points, they're just not quite relevant to the argument i'm trying to make.
my own comments are only in the context of that inquirer article that claims that, more or less, "yes the concert blurs those lines". which i don't agree with.
to answer your question, defining "genres" isn't always a matter of authority. it's like classifying apes: it's either a gorilla or a chimp, and it doesn't take a scientist to tell which is which.
so, what defines "classical" vs "contemporary" (though i shoulda used "rock" or "pop" instead of "contemporary")? well, the music defines itself, so you can judge yourself, if you know the characteristics of each "genre"
Post a Comment