But you can't dance to it.

OK, back to my musical life-story, after that break to kvetch about the stereotyping of Kasabian.  I'm afraid I may break to talk about Kasabian often.  I'm kind of obsessed with them.  Sue me.

I said I would discuss classical music.  I trust that by the time I'm finished, anyone that really likes that sort of thing will be ready to pelt me with raw eggs, and everyone else will be bored out of their socks.  Nevertheless, it is part of my experience of music, so let's get it done with.

First, Wikipedia makes a nice distinction between "classical music" and "Classical period."  I'm talking about the first, more vernacular definition.  Classical as in formal, orchestral, "high" as opposed to popular culture.  That may be part of my problem with it.  The older I get, the more distrustful I become of the classism implicit in "high culture."  I also dislike the idea (implied so often in any art or literary criticism) that "difficult" is somehow virtuous and that things which are easy on the eye/ear or fun to read/watch are lowbrow.  Some "difficult" things are worth it (Carlo Gesualdo) and some aren't (Philip Glass).


I was certainly exposed to a lot of classical music.  Despite my mom's best efforts, I never cared for most of it.  I like Beethoven, which probably has more to do with the fact that I loved Peanuts than anything.  Be that as it may, the brooding Für Elise and the soaring Ode to Joy have an undeniable emotional authenticity that I could never find in soppy Strauss or vacuous Mozart.  Yes, I know I'm supposed to like Mozart, just like I'm supposed to like the writings of Milton.  I know why educated people are supposed to appreciate Mozart.  But every time I hear his works, I think of women in glitter tights doing arabesques.  People who love Mozart love his sparkling virtuosity.  It makes me want to gag.

About the only classical music I picked up from my mother was my love of Wagner.  Now as a good liberal, I think I'm supposed to denounce Wagner for being an anti-semite.  Might as well denounce Mozart for being a coprophile.  Genius really has nothing to do with the personal/political virtues/vices of the artist in question.  I just love Wagner's bombast - it reminds me of glam rock.  (Which reminds me to say that Velvet Goldmine and Farinelli are really the same movie, and you need to watch both of them.)  And I love the stories behind the operas - I am a mythology teacher, after all!

I played the violin and sang in innumerable choruses, and went to music camp one summer, and took music history from the Cleveland Institute of Music when I was at CWRU.  In short, I'm familiar with a boatload of classical music.  Out of all of it, I liked

- to play chamber music, and to have it in the background.  It's very mathematical, and I like the precision of it.  But I could never really fangirl it, dig?

- to sing parts of the Messiah, namely "Surely he hath borne our griefs" and "Lift up your heads."  Uplifting, but not nearly as much as Ode to Joy.  The "Hallelujah Chorus" is kind of kitschy - maybe I just feel that way because it's been overused in advertisements, but so have Beethoven's 5th, "Ride of the Valkyries" and "Four Seasons," and I don't cringe when I hear them.  I feel the same way about the Messiah that I feel about sports...fun to participate in, but I don't really understand wanting to watch.

- Ravel's "Pavane for a Dead Princess."  Wow, THIS is a gorgeous piece of music.  We played this in orchestra, and it haunted me for years.  My dad always loved the more famous "Bolero," but frankly, it bores me.

- Carlo Gesualdo.  Gesualdo rocks!  He was also a mega-crazy mo-fo, which only adds to the attraction.  I learned about his music in college, but never played it. 

- Medieval secular/dance music in general.  I like the chordal progressions, so different from what the modern ear is used to, and it can have some serious drumming.  I suppose it's also pretty telling that I most enjoy the dance music as opposed to madrigals, motets etc.  Low culture vs. high culture again.  Medieval music sounds pretty difficult and unfamiliar to most people, so my preference for Medi-pop can't be attributed to listening to the Monkees when I was six.

Hmmm...now that I think of it, drumming is really an issue, maybe THE issue.  Drums are conspicuously absent in some classical music (chamber orchestras), and when present, used less to keep rhythm and more to add drama.  In most classical pieces, you get gongs and timpani thundering in at the loud bits, and then maybe an occasional snare might add a militaristic flare.  But I want doumbeks and tablas and bongos and a full goose rock n' roll drum kit!  I want pounding, trance-inducing rhythm, not little frills and trills.

The very existence of a conductor is problematic.  You'll sometimes see chamber groups without one, and that's because the mathematical precision of the music can drive the piece.  But in most classical music, you need a conductor because the rhythm is fluid.  And perhaps that's why in general, classical music sounds dull and empty to me.  Rhythm induces a trance; it's like a drug.  It's sexy; it's mystical.  Personally, I don't like Ravel's "Bolero" - but I have heard the word "sexy" to describe it over and over - and it is a piece remarkable for its relentless drumming.  No one would ever describe "The Blue Danube" as "sexy."  It's stylized.  Waltz rhythms are the rhythms of people eating creme-cakes and making small talk.

A true lover of classical music appreciates its complexity, the melodies, harmonies, the development of a theme over time.  And in my favorite classical pieces, I appreciate that too, but far more than that, the sense of emotional authenticity that the composer managed to convey.  Maybe drums are an easy way to put passion into a piece; it can be done otherwise, but it's much harder.  And I know that there are hundreds of thousands of people who would look askance at me and ask, "How can you say that Carmen and Aida are not passionate?"  To which I reply, no Carmen, please, no.  There's a reason Warner Brothers satirized it.

You like what you like.  My brain isn't wired for classical.  Anyway, I'll do a playlist.


"Ode to Joy." - It's amazing to me how someone with so much personal tragedy could leave as his last legacy one of the most ecstatic works ever written.  Maybe since he was deaf, he could only hear the music made by angels?

Handels' Messiah - "Lift up your heads": Listening to it, it's a little twee, innit?  Like something Monty Python should send up.  But it is fun to sing.

Here's why it's impossible to get anything done while on the internet: I go looking for a simple piece by Carlo Gesualdo and have to stop to watch Werner Herzog' documentary about the composer's life.  Gesualdo proves my point about genius having nothing to do with personality.  He was quite disturbed, and his music is disturbing.  Yet there's something very beautiful about it.  It does nothing you expect, and there's really nothing else like it.

Interesting that the Gesualdo documentary mentions Gesualdo's use of tonality as a precursor of Wagner.  O rly?  Here's the overture from Rienzi...how tame, melodic and sane it sounds in comparison!  But Wagner sure knows how to build the drama...makes me want to throw a cup of beer in the air at the end.

It's tough to find authentic Medieval/Renaissance music on YouTube that isn't the complete album, but just the first song here will give you an idea what I'm talking about.  It's almost got a jazzy groove to it.

And finally, imo one of the most beautiful pieces ever written, Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess.

On "Lad Rock"

I have been terrible about updating here.  It's my thoughtful blog, and I've been too swamped at work to have thoughts.  That's what modern life will do for you.

But I saw a review today that said something to get me started:  "The Roses stand accused of giving birth to a movement or aesthetic that would later evolve into Oasis, or The Libertines, or Kasabian; a lineage that (according to the argument) was backwards-looking, musically conservative, or that appealed to questionable notions of nationalism, tribalism etc."  It isn't the author of the article that bothers me, mind you; it's actually rather insightful.  It's that argument itself, which I'm all too familiar with, concerning the genre mislabeled "lad rock."

If we actually bother to listen to or watch these bands perform, it will become clear that the label has nothing to do with the music and everything to do with the audience.  The Libertines seem like proper punks to me.  90% of Oasis songs are sentimental ballads - I guess they appeal to the football crowd in the same way that my dad's army buddies would get drunk and sing "You are my Sunshine."  As for Kasabian, let's not even bring up the musical genius of WRPLA -  I want to know how many times Tom will have to dance with an inflatable dinosaur, make little hearts with his hands and wear a Micky Mouse hat before he stops being called testosterone-fueled and arrogant.  Oh, I suppose that the pillow fight in Lyon was testosterone-fueled...like many girls' slumber parties.

Actually, I love the writer of that article for saying this: "...let’s not even begin with the implicit classism that can be detected in a lot of that discourse."  As a US resident who loves British bands, it's so painfully obvious.  When I read negative things about Kasabian, 50% of them are really negative reviews of Kasabian's audience.  And while some of it is justified (just what is up with throwing urine in the pit?!?) most of it reads like a classist screed.  I really wonder if those critics who clearly want to seem cool and hipster by dissing Kasabian realize that they end up sounding like a 17 year old who wants to belong to the right clique.

It's funny, because here in the US Kasabian is a "cult band" that appeals to a completely different demographic.  I'm a college professor, and a woman, and I love them.  Trendy people, artists, intellectuals are into them.  99% of the US population wouldn't know a Midlands accent from Urdu, and have no idea that the Midlands are about as cool as Boise.  The accents of Tom Meighan and David Cameron sound exactly the same to most of us.  That kind of gives us a different perspective, maybe lets us see the music for what it is without all the cultural baggage.

I guess I'm a purist.  My friend M argues that you can't divorce pop music from its context, that an artist's image and impact on the times are just as important as the music.  Me, what I think about is that 200 years from now, what will survive is what is pleasing to the ear.  We'll look at what's artistically important, and then go back to see how the context shaped it.  That's how it is for literature, at least, with the exception of a handful of works that impacted the socio-political trends of the time (and weren't necessarily very good art - Sinclair's The Jungle comes to mind.)

But one thing is for certain.  If you judge someone by the behavior of their fanbase, then Jesus is in real trouble.