|
my potentially unpopular musical opinions:
free improvisation is probably the greatest, most sophisticated and artistically supreme form of music. (and i'm not just talking about western free improv i.e anything from 1970s bailey/parker/bennick onward, i mean improvisation in all cultures and time periods, from korean sanjo to outer hebridean gaelic psalm singing to contemporary free improv, free jazz and electronic noise acts)
gamelan music is fantastic.
the pixies make brilliant rock music. my favourite album is "come on pilgrim" & the peel sessions are great.
talking about musicians being "talented" or "untalented" when discussing the musical/artistic worth of music is superflous. why is a concert pianist labelled as "talented" by the fierce majority of listeners for accurately following sheets of music that have been played in the same way for 300 years, when a saxophonist playing solo, freely improvised music utilising bizarre, high-pitched, warbling, atonal and previously unheard of sounds is labelled as "untalented" by the same critics? having more or less "talent" (if talent even exists) bears no correlation to the value or quality of the music in the slightest, and the whole concept of "talent" is completely man made.
__________________
She holds the room up by talk alone
|