Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-delphi!malik
From: malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: mainstream avant-garde?
Message-ID: <850@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 15:06:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.850
Posted: Tue Oct 15 15:06:46 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 06:58:05 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 54

Re; the cutting-edge

<I think these are Doug Allen's comments; not positive>

>Well, there are lots of people who I like too, who I don't necessarily
>think are on the cutting edge.  But I don't think you have to be flipped
>out avante-guarde to be on the cutting edge.  In fact, I feel a lot of
>"avante-guarde" music isn't on the cutting edge, just because it falls
>*so* neatly into the class "avant-guarde".

Some people treat the word as meaning 'anything that's weird sounding'.
Depending on your exposure to music, that could include just about
anything - with the result that the word is just about worthless.

Also, this concept of 'avant-garde' doesn't seem to give any consideration
to history, which, after all, is exactly what the notion of a 'cutting
edge' is concerned with.  The curious thing about this 'catagory' (uh-oh,
did Rich hear that?) is that if something sounds like something that 
*is* avant-garde, is doesn't belong in the catagory. You can't imitate
'newness'.

If I invent a carbon-filament light-bulb, it ain't new.  But, someone
might say, it's exactly like Edison's and THAT was considered new. You
have to consider history or the notion of newness gets silly.
 
>People like Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush, I feel are definitely on the
>cutting edge.  (In fact, the most important cutting edge.)  

Ah, so there's more than one?  If so, we're talking about apples and
oranges.  If you're talking about well-made, sophisticated, complex,
popular music that is still accessible, then yes, they belong there.


>They may not always fall neatly into the class "avante-guarde", but they 
>are definitely powerful innovators, and are cutting new paths in music
>rather than just perfecting old ones.  They may tend to use a lot of
>knowledge that already exists about music, rather than just throwing
>away the book, like a lot of avant-guarde musicians do, but that's
>probably an even better approach.  It means I can relate to it (because
>how music is perceived is largely a cultural phenomenon), rather than
>just saying, "Hmmmm, that's interesting".  Distortion of what you
>already know is much more powerful emotionally than things totally new.
>Just ask any surrealist.

You're walking a fine line here.  You're almost saying 'they're new 
because they're not too new.'  And, I guess (upon reflection) that I
agree; *I* prefer music that is somehow related to what I already know
and like.  However, we may very much disagree as to what is 'accessible'.

Could there be such as thing as 'mainstream avant-garde'?  The most
innovative of those things that most people accept?  Is that what
you're referring to?

							- Karl