I would tend to agree - 'classical music' [itself a misnomer] tends towards the same ends as poetry and visual art [etc] insofar as it's far less concerned towards notions of audience etc. I'd be surprised if rock, outside Fushitsusha, ever caught up with Schoenberg, let alone Ligeti/ Xenakis/ Radelescu [etc].

sssstttttuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudddddeeeennnnttt!!!!

Well, modern "classical" is definitely where a lot of "art" (or ahht, if you prefer) resides, but I wouldn't say it's exclusive to classical or jazz.
Certainly orchestras and conductors playing music that is hundreds of years old, performing "interpretations" that are akin to going into a massive piece of literature and adding tiny underlines or italics here and there are just as guilty of "regression" as any perennial garage revivalist. I would argue they are possibly more regressive, just because they are operating under some kind of high-brow delusion. The garage revivalist rarely harbors notions of originality or self-importance; they're just having a good time and using Vox instuments to do it.

Fair points all... But you're talking about 'classical' [still a misnomer] in the sense of the rarified Vivaldi bollocks. Don't get me wrong, I'm of the impression that there's nearly nothing done by Mozart, Bach & Beethoven (I choose my names carefully) that hasn't been regurgitated ad infinitum by the rock hordes - for myself, I hold the notion of 'art music' in very high regard, I would seriously contend any argument that sought to put any rock above the achievements of your Cages, Varéses or Xenakises (3 names at random).

Apples and oranges.
I love Pentagram and Crumb equally, and for different reasons.
"better" only really applies to things used for the same purpose. Music is not always "of the head" for me. Lots of times it's gut or balls.

(and yes, the term "classical" being used to cover 20th Century (an beyond) "art" composers really is dumb and confuses a lot of good musical discussions.)

Gut or balls is the most important for the individual, unless the individual happens to be an academic.

When we're talking about 'avant' or progressive, we're talking intellect. Ultimately, I'm happier with Happy Hardcore than I am Stimmung or somesuch. Having said that, I would happily contend that there was a cultural moment in which HHC was a pseudo-avant form.

It often raises a smile when Yanks say 'apples and oranges' because I have no idea what they mean, except insofar as I understand they mean 'horses for courses'.

I was listening to a Peel show from '69 today in which 'Pentagram' were referred to as 'The Pentagram'. HTID.

I do think there was a SHORT (I stress that it was very short) "golden age" of continental European and South American progressive rock that was applying the 20th Century art school shit to the rock idiom very very well. The rate of return to the amount of LPs is slim, but the good ones are incredibly good.

Private press electronic LPs by nameless shut-ins in the late 60s to late 70s also work out well on occasion, as do certain soundtracks from that era (Andromeda Strain - WHOA)

They are both tasty fruits that one can enjoy equally, while tasting totally different, having different textures, one you peel and one you don't, etc..

I have never in my life heard the term "horses for courses," so I thank you for that little tidbit.

only if you're talking about progression within the art form rather than how an art form can affect progress of the world in general, 20th century avant garde composition barely had any impact on the shaping and progression of the 20th century and affected very few lives in comparison to rock n roll.

advertising jingles aside, who decides what is and isn't art music?

Yeah, agreed.

I mean, you're familiar with the Seymour Wright fallout of free improv - there was an aesthetic moment in which Derek Bailey is (rightly) exalted to the point of avant- imprimatuer [sp?], but the aegesis of continuing that is a convoluted and plainly wrong narrative. I have no problems with Prévost/ Rowe/ Bailey [etc] in their selves, but the fallout has produced little but shite.

The Rolling Stones - or even Oasis - will always be more influential than a... Harry Pussy or somesuch, let alone Yatsuano Tone or Cage.

Me. Ergo, fuck off.

I don't buy this idea of inborn creativity ("creative people" - argh! that phrase!), the idea of creativity as a "gift" that some have and some don't makes a mockery of everyone who has worked relentlessly for their art. I can barely play music at all because I havn't worked at it enough. I can draw and paint well because I have. It's as simple as that. It's hardly natural, art in all it's capacity to inspire and blah blah blah comes from working your ass off, actually. It's not natural, and it DEFINATELY doesn't exempt you from mistakes.

Has it? Who are these people, and how have they been affected apart from getting fucked on drugs, getting a broken rib or two, a few ringing ears, and being simply entertained?

that's nonsense. the logical conclusion to what you're saying is that if anyone puts their mind to something they can become incredible at what they do if they work hard enough, which is tantamount to saying that all people are exactly alike. sadly it is not the case that every person has unlimited potential for anything, the reason you're better at drawing and painting than you are at playing music isn't just that you've spent more time doing them, but also that you are more inclined to do draw and paint and have a greater natural capacity for those things than you do for playing music. some people are naturally more talented at certain things than others and will always be better at them no matter how hard other people try. however, having a natural talent for something is not the same thing has having the ambition and dedication to cultivate that talent to achieve greatness and/or massive recognition.

i can't believe someone on a music board is ignorant of the impact that rock n roll had on society. there are plenty of books on the subject, i would advise you to go to the library and read one.

True, although Harry Pussy mean far more in my life than the stones or oasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_an...ultural_impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._rock_and_roll

To quote (ahem!) Roger Waters "thats like saying give a man Les Paul and he becomes Eric Clapton!". Well, not quite that extreme obviously, but to get to Eric Clapton standard on guitar it takes an incredible amount of effort. Yes people are not exactly alike, and it may take some people beyond their lifetime to get to Eric Clapton standard, but most people after many years of total dedication to music and their instrument could give Clapton a run for his money. They'd be getting there exactly the same way Clapton did, by playing relentlessly. But maybe the Clapton example hints more of issues of skill rather than creativity, not that he wasn't creative, but his total mastery of his instrument often overshadows the writing of it. But Mr. Waters is a good example of picking up the latter in my opinion, at the beggining of his stint in a rock band he couldn't even tune his damned bass, let alone write music. But after 30 years in the music industry by the end of his stint in PF he had written some of the most beloved tunes in classic rock. The Human League, started off as a self-proclaimed non-talent group, but after engrossing themselves in the music industry wrote some of the most recogniseable and sucessful pop songs of the 80s, as cringe-worthy as they may be. Essentially creation in any form and the output for it CAN be learnt, the assertion that some people just aren't creative is absurd. And 'talent', if it exists, can't be measured, and therefore is totally subjective. The same gig where, in your eyes, an untalented uncreative douchbag performs someone else could leave proclaiming him a genius, and vica versa.

I was reacting to your comment about Rock n' Rolls affect of people's individual LIVES, not society. They're very different things. I think rock can have only a very limited effect of people's lives, it hasn't had much of one on mine, and yet still it's something I enjoy very very much.

How can something affect society without affecting the idividuals who comprise that society?

I didn't say it did affect society.

I didn't say it didn't either.

do you think if you played as much football when you were a kid as david beckham did you would be on your way to captaining england now?

I may have a good chance. But not likely, granted. But that example is a TOTALLY different ball-game (so to speak!) than what we're discussing here. Firstly, whilst I'd be quite likely to grasp the level of football theory and tactics Beckham has, because all human brains are capable of being taught things at varying speeds, being a footballer has to do with other factors. Physical factors, and all people are physically different, my body might not be (and lets face it, isn't) capable of running as damned fast as he can, I might not have same agility, and my stamina might not last for darting pointlessly around a field for 90 minutes.
Creativity on the other hand is almost totally a mental thing. As I said before all people can be taught to do things, and in the case of drawing, everyone has arms they can freely move around, what more do you need to becoming as "talented" as the people you've always been told are inherently better at stuff than you?

The only way you get ''the masses' to listen to classical music or 'highbrow concept' music is by putting it on a film/tv show soundtrack. Or if you are a dictator and force them to play it in their houses/public spaces all day.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum.

Not really. You just sit down expressing something that has emotional qualities the way you can express them with what you have, in whichever way you can do it. I'd be shocked and even disgusted to witness someone playing with validation of themselves as their sole motivation. Acousticrock is quite right in saying that some musicians do that, but then, where is the fun for others in you doing it? Experimenting with sounds in order to articulate what you want to express is one thing, doing it only to show off that you can ''repair and improve'' things is just pointless meandering.

That's just a definitional issue. "Creativity" is the development of new ideas, not the ability to bring them into existence. You can work your ass off your entire life to completely perfect an existing form of art, and not be the least bit creative. You would be talented, respectable, and a good musician/painter/whatever--but not creative.

Can creativity be learned? Perhaps. I don't know. But regardless, new ideas make someone creative by definition, whether or not it's innate.

And anyways, there are absolutely people who are naturally better at art--both creatively and technically. That should not downplay the effort non-natural talent requires, but there is natural talent everywhere. I would consider myself naturally creative, but I have almost no natural technical ability in music or visual art. There are people who can pick up a guitar or paintbrush and use it better than I could in 20 years of practice. Creativity, however, would determine what they do with that technical ability.

im regressing myself a lot today....

Talent is just a word for people who can't grasp that the person in question has had 20 years of practice, too.

Good god; if you can't recognize that individual people have their individual facilities and predispositions to excel in certain areas and not others ("talents" if you will), I don't know what anyone can say. I don't wish to be rude, but this line of thinking is about as pig-headed and ridiculous as I've seen on this board. Everyone is NOT equal, and everyone does not have the same potential to excel in every area or discipline ("creative" or otherwise) as everyone else on the freaking planet. If you can't recognize this, you are deliberately shoving your head in the sand and pretending the human condition is completely different than what it actually is.

Fucking a.

The problem is that nobody can really define talent. Unlike technique, It's impossible to quantify. We may intuitively know when we encounter the work of someone with talent but we can't pin down what it is, nor fully trust our intuition. As such I tend to agree with This is Not Here's position only because it strikes me as being the most workable. The concept of the artist-as-creator is a relatively modern one, that does away with a massive and far longer lasting tradition based solely on technique. As such, the great problem with so much of contemporary art education is its emphasis on ideas. It prepares people for becoming artists on a conceptual level without ever providing them with the skills necessary to express those ideas in a way that does them justice. On its own, hard work won't turn you into a Caravaggio, or a Hendrix, or a Joyce, or a Godard, but we don't really understand what they were anyway, at least not in any kind of identifiable sense.

But you can't deny that one person can draw a straighter line than another with no practice. When you're talking about someone like Charlie Parker, who completely renovated jazz in a way I can't even fucking comprehend, yes, it becomes hard to determine what his "talent" was, but--and perhaps your word "technique" is a better one--what I mean by talent is the quantifiable. I completely agree that there is far to much emphasis on ideas/creativity--so in that sense I sympathize with yours and This Is Not Here's complaint that some people can become "artists" without working at it. However, there are cultural concepts--such as writing in iambic pentameter, or blending colors accurately--that are naturally grasped at different levels of ability. It doesn't mean that blending colors is an absolute "good talent," but it is within the context of our culture, and therefore becomes "natural talent." Perhaps someone has a natural talent at mixing colors in a way we don't aesthetically appreciate, so that might be considered "bad talent," within our culture that talent might be called "being good at mixing colors poorly." But it's natural.

Creativity is also somewhat quantifiable in that you can hold up the output of an artist in light of everything that the artist has been exposed to, and determine how much empiric restructuring has occurred. Or something. But creativity is essentially a measure of how much "new" stuff the artist comes up with that is also pleasing or valuable.

Also, it might be worthwhile to note that I'm anti-formalist. I don't think a work can be attributed value without the context of both the artist and the viewer/reader/listener.

Giving them a flag to wave often does the trick.

Not highbrow, but classical still.

So what's the fucking message for all those out there that want to express themselves, and 'create'? ...

Practice makes perfect, practice your instrument or your painting style - but you might aswell quit at the first hurdle, the first difficultly you come across, because it just means your not talented. No point carrying on further to see if you get better at it, because if you're not gifted, the more you work at it the more time you waste. Give up. Give up now. Only certain people can create. Nobody knows who these people are, everyone thinks they're someone different. But just give up.

What IS NOT pig-headed about that?