What does 'challenging' mean as it relates to music in 2012?

Thoughts after reading this post Awepittance's post in the Raime thread - http://forum.watmm.com/topic/75024-raime-quarter-turns-over-a-living-line/

  Quote

Modern Love and their buddies Blackest Black Ever to me take the industrial spirit, water it down but market it as if it has the same edginess of truly industrial music. Case in point, compare Vatican Shadow to Muslimgauze or compare Demdike Stare to Contagious Orgasm. It sounds similar, with the same ingredients but the recent 4th wave of industrial stuff off Boomkat's labels just doesnt cohere or have the same philosophy embedded in it. It's 'dark' music for clubs, not dark music that gives you nightmares or makes you think. It acts more of an immediate form of bassy tactile pleasure which makes sense. Contagious orgasm and Muslimgauze are not mixed/mastered for clubs, so unless you like to be challenged with your 'darkness', that music isn't really for you.

I agree with a lot of what is said but the question in terms of what is challenging and is it relative comes up.

He kind of acknowledges that for the more dancy crowds perhaps that music is challenging but for those exposed to the prior artists not so much. So then is the music challenging or can it only be said challenging to ____. One might want to concede that point but then you have to say well if we go back to when those artists were coming out, was there not a sense that they were challenging independent of the listener. In other words they were challenging in form. Which could be flipped to say those that emulate that sound today aren't challenging in form but perhaps in presentation. Uhhhhhhhh brain fart. Add on.

Generally: who cares.

But to play along, when I think of challenging I pretty much take it to mean working outside of the accepted norms of the audience and therefore requiring a reorientation of the critical faculties in order to be appreciated.

the last well-known album I can think of that was roundly acknowledged to be challenging was the Laurel Halo LP in that a lot of the vocals were out of tune and quite a lot of people felt this was something they had to 'get past' in order to appreciate the record. So in that instance the cultural norm would be the expectation that singers should sing in tune.

Also I think it's worth noting that music doesn't have to be 'dark' to be challenging. I think something like Suzanne Ciani's Seven Waves would be a challenging listen for people who are only into metal/industrial whatever because it's operating in such an alien paradigm of new age/gushing romanticism.

Who cares is without a doubt the right answer. But it's friday!!

The Laurel Halo is a good example and yet raises more questions. It may be challenging to hear songs with the singing out of tune, but is it challenging to sing out of tune? Perhaps if you are an incredible singer first.

Challenging to the artist vs challenging to the listener. Or how about challenging to the art? Something challenging to the artist is not necesarily challenging to the listener and vice versa. But challenging to the art should cover all bases no? Of course that takes us down the 'what is *the* art' dirty wormhole.

And agreed on dark not defining challenging, except to an audience that does not expect their music to be such. Is that reversable though? Can a dark audience be challenged by music that is not dark?

  On 11/16/2012 at 5:49 PM, primusluta said:

Can a dark audience be challenged by music that is not dark?

lolllll. Quintessential Friday post. i think i covered that in my first reply.

I don't feel like the new school of musicians are trying to masquerade their music as challenging and avant-garde, but maybe I am just not paying enough attention to their PR. If anything, it's music journalists that seem to be too eager to make the connection between "pop dark ambient" and industrial music. It seems pretty obvious to me that the new school chooses "abrasive" sounds to work with because they find them appealing, and not because they are suited in making a political/social statement, like the pioneers of industrial music would have done.

So the lack of being challenged isn't a problem - there is plenty of great unchallenging music out there after all - but to the extent that someone feels the new school musicians are misrepresenting what their influences were really about there could be a feeling of disillusion present.

"Pop Dark Ambient"

Is the challenge making dark ambient pop? Has anyone succeeded?

I get the "dark ambient" part, but the pop part... not so much. Would Luxury Problems fall into that category? If so is it simply because of the vocals? I don't think the previous stott could be called pop. Now Andrea... possibly and without any vocals.

Basically, Scott Walker has a new album out next month and that's what it means. Go listen to the last one then get the new one.

It's not meant as disparaging really, more a reference to Kompakt's "pop ambient" series. As in, great music that is not trying to pretend it's anything more than really pleasant sounding and evocative atmospherics.

That Scott Walker album looks to be a great reference point for challenging in that it covers all bases. His methodology is a challenge for him to the art form and indeed to the audience, even those familiar with his work. If used as a measuring stick how many could stack up?

Of course someone might be able to site prior references (I have none). Would that render it unchallenging? Or is the context of the now the relativistic bar by which it must be measured? Within the now there aren't may reference points for which it could be compared and as such engaging it is a matter of throwing out the norms of expectations in 2012 music.

I think. Is the day over yet?

the opposite of easy listening

Sheeeeit... easy listening... Now *THAT* is challenging music.

Totally. Music that is "too cheesy" is one of my favorite kinds of challenging music to listen to.

That said, I agree with Awep that there is something trendy going on with the quasi-dark quasi-industrial stuff Boomkat's been hyping. But I agree that, as others have said, that's more a criticism of the marketing (and here I'm considering titles, names, and artwork under the umbrella of "marketing") than the music itself.

Good connection by Lucy as well to the Laurel Halo album. I think (maybe not to us, but to the "average" music fan) that "amateurish" music is one of the most challenging kinds of music to listen to, because most people have been conditioned to believe that artists have to be unique, talented, very learned, or perhaps "gifted" in some way, to be validly expressive. Which is BS, but it's very hard to get out of that headspace permanently.

  On 11/16/2012 at 6:47 PM, Ascdi said:

Totally. Music that is "too cheesy" is one of my favorite kinds of challenging music to listen to.

 

That said, I agree with Awep that there is something trendy going on with the quasi-dark quasi-industrial stuff Boomkat's been hyping. But I agree that, as others have said, that's more a criticism of the marketing (and here I'm considering titles, names, and artwork under the umbrella of "marketing") than the music itself.

 

Good connection by Lucy as well to the Laurel Halo album. I think (maybe not to us, but to the "average" music fan) that "amateurish" music is one of the most challenging kinds of music to listen to, because most people have been conditioned to believe that artists have to be unique, talented, very learned, or perhaps "gifted" in some way, to be validly expressive. Which is BS, but it's very hard to get out of that headspace permanently.

Yeah, i think that connects to the thing Awep said about mastering too - and also extends to production in general. There seems to be a huge cultural inertia behind the idea that all mistakes need to be hidden and rough edges need to be sanded down. Even in the so-called underground scene I think the idea of what a 'finished product' does or does not entail isn't challenged as much as it could be.

Basically there's a whole lot of completely fucking lifeless-sounding stuff around and sometimes i feel like that life has been knocked out of the music in a misguided effort to attain some bogus ideal of what a 'good' recording should sound like.

Regarding Laurel Halo, that style of "singing" seems really deliberate though, coupled with the fact that she didn't try to mask the vocals at all. I feel like it's not challenging in the sense of asking more from the listener, and that "getting past" the vocals is more trying to tolerate it, so we can move on to the instrumentation itself. I mean, singing out of key is generally uncomfortable to the human ear. There's a reason why people don't really do that. Do we really need to challenge that? I don't know about anyone else, but I think the album would've been much better if she sang more traditionally and went for some kind of ghostly, sensual vibe.

I would say the vocals in Washed Out are an example of being amateurish. It's obvious the guy isn't a talented singer, but it's still enjoyable outright:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-0TYeg9Rzc

that washed out tune is actually "challenging" for me b/c it's literally just him singing (somewhat shittily) over a slowed down loop of several bars of some other dude's tune (gary low?). it sounds lush but man that's so cheap. but whatever. fml

  On 11/16/2012 at 10:29 PM, Tauhid said:

Regarding Laurel Halo, that style of "singing" seems really deliberate though, coupled with the fact that she didn't try to mask the vocals at all. I feel like it's not challenging in the sense of asking more from the listener, and that "getting past" the vocals is more trying to tolerate it, so we can move on to the instrumentation itself. I mean, singing out of key is generally uncomfortable to the human ear. There's a reason why people don't really do that. Do we really need to challenge that? I don't know about anyone else, but I think the album would've been much better if she sang more traditionally and went for some kind of ghostly, sensual vibe.

 

I think this sense of unease/slightly jarring discomfort is really a crucial part of what makes the album compelling for me. The off-key vocals are so sustained (and multi-tracked/treated in such subtle ways) that you're forced to negotiate a new kind of relationship between them and the music - and I found that very rewarding. 100% respect for your opinion etc. but I just have to rep for this album every chance I get - it's definitely one of my favourite albums of 2012. :-)

  On 11/16/2012 at 6:08 PM, Iain C said:

Basically, Scott Walker has a new album out next month and that's what it means. Go listen to the last one then get the new one.

pretty much. all these cassetes and experimental stuff is not challening but cause it was not to be challenged to make it.

  On 11/16/2012 at 9:48 PM, Lucy Faringold said:

  On 11/16/2012 at 6:47 PM, Ascdi said:

Totally. Music that is "too cheesy" is one of my favorite kinds of challenging music to listen to.

 

That said, I agree with Awep that there is something trendy going on with the quasi-dark quasi-industrial stuff Boomkat's been hyping. But I agree that, as others have said, that's more a criticism of the marketing (and here I'm considering titles, names, and artwork under the umbrella of "marketing") than the music itself.

 

Good connection by Lucy as well to the Laurel Halo album. I think (maybe not to us, but to the "average" music fan) that "amateurish" music is one of the most challenging kinds of music to listen to, because most people have been conditioned to believe that artists have to be unique, talented, very learned, or perhaps "gifted" in some way, to be validly expressive. Which is BS, but it's very hard to get out of that headspace permanently.

 

Yeah, i think that connects to the thing Awep said about mastering too - and also extends to production in general. There seems to be a huge cultural inertia behind the idea that all mistakes need to be hidden and rough edges need to be sanded down. Even in the so-called underground scene I think the idea of what a 'finished product' does or does not entail isn't challenged as much as it could be.

 

Basically there's a whole lot of completely fucking lifeless-sounding stuff around and sometimes i feel like that life has been knocked out of the music in a misguided effort to attain some bogus ideal of what a 'good' recording should sound like.

I am strongly, strongly against the Laurel Halo school of music. I like a lot of what comes out of their but am strongly against this idiotic idea that amateurish art should be accepted and listened to. Lil B is fucking garbage, somebody seriously needs to say it. From an artistic standpoint, it's complete shit. On the other side of the mountain you've got guys like Ligeti or Coltrane who care enough about what they're doing to actually put some fucking effort into it.

Now, whatever headspace this is that says, "music is a mathematical structure that requires devotion and effort to master" 0 I guess it makes me a fascist to think that musicians should make their music sound good, even if that means some people can't be creative or expressive, or at least can't be payed to be creative or expressive. There is this headspace where it's like, "how dare you say your music is better than mine." OK, I'm not speaking for some objective infinite taste-machine. But seriously... don't sit here and tell me that it would be OK to discard The Rite of Spring over some Lil B album. That's intuitively wrong, to me. In a world where Lil B is acceptable, very very bad things are happening. At the same time there are good things... everyone is allowed to speak their mind, say things. We're all cool with being ourselves and sitting on couches and hoppin around. We're all good people.

At the same time fuck that shit, when I listen to music I'm looking for something else that can stimulate my brain. If your brain gets stimulated by Lil B fine, just don't fuck up the marketplace for the people who actually give a shit about music in its most basic form.

By the way I actually agree, the Halo is one of my favorite albums. There is a strong undercurrent though which I take issue with. It's always been there, starting with Pop Art. I guess to paint Expressionist art in 2012 is to be a dickhead... but fuck if those pop artists aren't dickheads too. It's no solution guys. Trust me, expressionist, abstract art will always win out.

hehe. Scorching Friday night broadsides from Mr Vamos ;-)

With regard to the Laurel Halo album particularly, I haven’t made up my mind whether or not I really like it yet. Haven’t listened to it enough. Perhaps I’ll give it a spin tonight, after LUX. So I’m not necessarily judging Quarantine either way, or saying it’s bad or good, I’m just saying I think we can all agree on some of the themes.

I found vamos’s last “stimulate my brain” comment interesting because to me things that are challenging to listen to DO stimulate my brain. So in that sense for me I am happy with my purchase of the Laurel Halo album—because it is interesting. “Good” and “interesting” have slightly different meaning to me I guess, and I tend to err on the side of the latter when deciding how to spend my ear-time.

As far as amateurish-ness goes, I dunno. The role of ‘craft’ in art is like, an eternal question. I think it’s tricky to talk about Coltrane or Rite of Spring here, because while those are certainly examples in one sense of technically accomplished music, they were both very “wrong” at the time of their introduction as well. Messy, untidy, blasphemous, and it’s only retroactively that they became part of the cultural canon. I imagine to many people at the time they seemed like worthless noise, ‘chops’ or no.

  On 11/16/2012 at 11:16 PM, vamos scorcho said:

By the way I actually agree, the Halo is one of my favorite albums. There is a strong undercurrent though which I take issue with. It's always been there, starting with Pop Art. I guess to paint Expressionist art in 2012 is to be a dickhead... but fuck if those pop artists aren't dickheads too. It's no solution guys. Trust me, expressionist, abstract art will always win out.

This is challenging, because I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

  On 11/16/2012 at 5:58 PM, zkreso said:

I don't feel like the new school of musicians are trying to masquerade their music as challenging and avant-garde, but maybe I am just not paying enough attention to their PR. If anything, it's music journalists that seem to be too eager to make the connection between "pop dark ambient" and industrial music. It seems pretty obvious to me that the new school chooses "abrasive" sounds to work with because they find them appealing, and not because they are suited in making a political/social statement, like the pioneers of industrial music would have done.

well said, and i like to keep in mind that a lot of the time the PR is not from the artists themselves but from the label or marketing group behind them. They are being packaged and branded in a sense, and right now thanks to places like Pitchfork and Boomkat 'avant-garde' and 'experimental' is the last frontier of hipster cannibalism. Maybe the musicians aren't trying to masquerade their music as challenging over avant-garde, but the marketing behind a lot of them definitely does. Truly challenging music like Farmers Manual or Pierre Bastian doesn't need to be marketed as 'avant-garde' because the proof is in the pudding, a lot of people just don't know what the hell to make of it. It's self evident when music or the ideas behind it are challenging.

glad to see my boomkat critique taking into the music discussion thread. And the bottom of line of what i was trying to say was that Boomkat masquerades as a cultural source of information when it's

- a record store who's primary goal is to sell product

and

- no store who's primary goal is to sell product will make anything more than a meager effort to focus anyone's attention away from products being sold by other stores instead of product on their own store.

They aren't a review site, and they aren't a source of all encompassing information about cutting edge electronic experimental music. In some ways i would compare them to Bleep, except in Bleep's case there is no question that Warp products are marketed on Bleep because they are Warp's store. Boomkat doesn't make it obvious that Modern Love is their own imprint, and i think if they had more of a full disclosure on their own imprint, it would be slightly more palatable for me.

  On 11/16/2012 at 6:47 PM, Ascdi said:

 

That said, I agree with Awep that there is something trendy going on with the quasi-dark quasi-industrial stuff Boomkat's been hyping. But I agree that, as others have said, that's more a criticism of the marketing (and here I'm considering titles, names, and artwork under the umbrella of "marketing") than the music itself.

true, i agree with this. Say if Vatican Shadow was marketed as a gushing tribute project to Muslimgauze i would have less of a visceral aversion to the music, so I'll admit i fall prey to the marketing literature in a reactive way.

what does "challenging" mean in 2012?

anything that's not dubstep or boy bands or X-Factor related. anything interesting.

Yeah dude Boomkat kind of blows.

I've said this 1000000000000000 times but I'll say it again:

The future of music, and the savior of music, lies in a system which implements the following 3 services into one highly accessible flow.

1. Spotify + Itunes

Free streaming albums, can "donate" or purchase full lengths... with the purchasing mechanism built into the page

2. Bandcamp + Soundcloud

Artists can upload their own music... true democratization of "cool music" - the people decide. absolutely no ads

3. Rateyourmusic.com + Metacritic

Review and criticism built into the software... you can comment on songs, and you can follow people who have similar taste, exactly like Rateyourmusic. you can follow "good critics" in order to narrow down the recommendations for what you can listen to

The only problem is that it could quickly turn into Reddit, where bad content is upvoted. So for the more esoteric musicians and fans, it would require active searching for the "subforums" and critics whose taste is similar. Frankly, I see ZERO problem with this, and breaking out would be simplified, as all musicians would be on the same playing field - SPOTIFY - without any "label hype" to buttfuck people.

Just an idea though... Boomkat has failed. These labels have an express interest in not seeing the above idea for a program actually developed. It wouldn't be easy to make money for the label, as physical copies have entirely lost their value. At this point it becomes up to the listener to decide if he will donate or write a positive review. This seems entirely cool to me. donations will happen, physical copies will be available. But then we can control the illegal downloading more. Boomkat rendered archaic, as full free streaming and built in metacritic/RYM will show them to be the shills that they are. Even if I like them, of course. So they're not actually shills, but compared to my idea, they are.