"Faking It" by H. Barker and Y. Taylor

Could be. A lot of my opinions of music are, after all, more or less made up on the spot and a lot of them I'm no longer sure in after reading that book. And I'm probably still putting too much judgement upon avantgardeness... or I'm making a mistake in thinking of "consciously avant-garde" artists and outsider artists as opposites because the best known outsiders are both. You know, like Syd Barrett and Captain Beefheart.

Also, fetishizing this "outsider-ness" is the kind of attitude that book eviscerates!


Edited by Toaster Mantis - November 04 2008 at 14:00

debrewguy wrote: DIdn't the Turtles have a B-Side called "Can't you hear the Cows" ? No , really

Perhaps.

DIdn't the Turtles have a B-Side called "Can't you hear the Cows" ? No , really 

Henry, how familiar are you with "outsider music"? You know, music that's created totally outside the norms and structures of mainstream culture and its ideas of what good music's like. Stuff like Captain Beefheart, Joe Meek and the Blue Men, the Residents, Syd Barrett's solo albums and so on...  I don't think outsider music is synonymous with avantgarde music at all, though, because "outsider" is nowhere as self-conscious about doing something different. Not as much deliberately thinking outside the box as never even having gotten into the box in the first place, you could say, however I'm not sure that's a good description because the Residents are very consciously avantgarde but are definitely outsider artists. At least they prove there's some overlap.

So, what the hell am I trying to prove with this? Well, if you ask me "outsider artists" are more genuinely artistic than those who put a lot of craft into being avantgarde. I think it's because usually with outsider music, the whole "different from everyone else" is incidental rather than the entire point of the exercise. But, as Barker and Taylor prove in their book, that doesn't necessarily make it better music.


Edited by Toaster Mantis - November 03 2008 at 04:57

The ultimate determinant of quality is the opinion of the listener. No "expert" is needed, nor relevant. No consensus, nor agreement with others, be they a minority or the majority is required as "proof" or support for one's taste.
Beauty is in the ear of the behearer (sic).
SO let the Celineophiles Vegas themselves to death, allow the Zeuhl to procreate, and keep your ears open for the next magical musical moment. That's all that should matter to you, eh.
P.S. I do enjoy essays such as the listed, and look forward to locating the books mentioned. I do like well argued opinions. I have no use for Proclaimed Truth.

Toaster Mantis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Have you read File Under Popular by Chris Cutler? No, but now that you mentioned it I'm interested. How much does it cover the same subject matter as Faking It?

Edited by Henry Plainview - November 02 2008 at 14:37

Have you read File Under Popular by Chris Cutler? I've been wanting to.

This sounds like something I should try to get my hands on since it's a topic I often find myself in heated discussions about.

Cheers, sir Toaster, for bring this to attention

It is available in Europe (as I found it at a public library in Denmark) and was published last year.

Right now I'm halfways through this book subtitled The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music ... and though it doesn't use that many examples from prog, I sure as hell think it's relevant. It takes a rather critical look at not just the concept of authenticity but also genre classifications in general. However, it's not always equally neutral because instead of collaborating on each chapter the two authors split the bok between each other by chapter. There are also times where the limits of the authors' musical knowledge become a bit too obvious, like pretty much every time it talks about metal. (which fortunately is a rare occasion! )

The good stuff in the book is absolutely brilliant, though, and so far it's mostly good stuff. Especially its evisceration of Alan Lomax. For those who don't know: Lomax is basically the Johann Grimm of American folk music and is responsible for most of what is today known about it. That said: Faking It reveals that his definition of "authentic folk music" was so ridiculously narrow that the stuff making the cut to his compilations was hardly at all representative of traditional American music. The most prog-related chapter is probably the one comparing the Beatles and the Monkees, since its point is that it wasn't until the Beatles that only performing the songs you wrote yourself became a norm in rock. They might not have invented prog as such (that honour goes to Frank Zappa) but it's clear that prog wouldn't have become as big as it did if it wasn't for the Beatles getting the influence they did.

Anyone else read it? I'm curious to know other progheads' opinion on it...




Edited by Toaster Mantis - October 25 2008 at 15:46