Robert Davidson

Missing out on a lovely offer of Massive Attack tonight other duties boo hoo!

23 March at 07:57

__________

Ian Shanahan

Massive attack of what? grin

24 March at 17:15

__________

Robert Davidson

Massive Attack of raw talent

24 March at 19:30

__________

Ian Shanahan

Talent? Relative to whom?

24 March at 20:18

__________

Robert Davidson

Talent relative to just about anyone Massive Attack wipe the floor baby

25 March at 11:28

__________

Ian Shanahan

Relative to silverchair or Missy Higgins? Maybe. Relative to Stockhausen (Karlheinz or Marcus), or Harry
Sparnaay, or Messiaen, or the Arditti Quartet, or Roger Woodward? I very much doubt it ... and if (as I
suspect) theyre just another band playing some form of demotic music such as one hears all the time on
mainstream radio, then definitely not: in this case, theyd be many orders of magnitude LOWER in talent-
level itd be like comparing a child who just won a race at their local primary school with an Olympic Gold
Medal-winning sprinter! (And as for Massive Attack wipe the floor, they must be on a par with a mop.)

25 March at 19:48

__________

Robert Davidson

~1~
Stockhausen and Son could wish all they liked and not groove like Massive Attack so talented, and those
other Euros can eat their hearts out. Messiaen could afford to lighten up and actually get a sense of humour.
Massive Attack has it, and more soul than you can poke a stick at.

25 March at 22:08

__________

Ian Shanahan

Well Robert, Ive heard Markus groove pretty good, ditto Harry. And one of the great things about Messiaen
is that he NEVER lightens up a marvellous counterpoise in an age when musical light-weightness is
excessively commonplace; humour is simply outside the ambit (and possibly contrary to) his gravitas and
metanarrative. But whilst I cannot but agree with you that groove and soul do require some degree of
musical talent, Im sorry, but it aint anywhere near the level of talent needed to play or compose the stuff that
those abovenamed blokes (re)create. For example, watching Ben Marks and Tristram Williams flawless,
inspirational performances of large chunks of Stockhausens LICHT (all from memory, I might add...) now
THATS witnessing talent of the very highest magnitude.

Fri at 00:03

__________

Robert Davidson

yeah, Ben and Tristram Williams were pretty incredible with that memorised LICHT amazing. BTW why
does commonplace mean bad to you?

Fri at 05:53

__________

Robert Davidson

Humour is profound; is religious mysticism?

Fri at 06:01

__________

Ian Shanahan

Commonplace doesnt necessarily mean bad to me, Robert; but bad music is exceedingly commonplace.
Humour is sometimes profound (the highest form being wit [both meanings intended]); genuine religious
mysticism is ALWAYS profound it engages everything!

Fri at 11:22

__________

Robert Davidson

Art music could afford to be more commonplace, or to embrace the everyday, as Gregory Sandow would
have it.

Today at 09:18

~2~
__________

Ian Shanahan

Why? Thats the province of the vernacular, surely. The role of art-music is (among other things) to
transcend the mundane.

Today at 09:23

__________

Robert Davidson

Beethoven, Wagner, Mozart, Strauss, Mahler (etc.) included the mundane in their work they could all write
a simple tune when it was called for (being simple is actually hard). That disappeared in a lot of art music
after WWII, maybe because of composers trying too hard to separate themselves from popular culture.

Today at 09:29

__________

Ian Shanahan

So have I, just not all that much of the time (and neither did the above gentlemen). A simple tune is not quite
as hard to pull off as you think; and simplistic is dead simple. But the reason such cultural slumming into the
low-brow disappeared post WWII is that many composers felt that popular culture was becoming (or already
had become) too debased, an oxymoron. That is even more so the case nowadays: so much popular (Top
40) music this century is far cruder harmonically, for instance than it ever was during the 1950s and
1960s; thats why the gap between high and low has never been bigger! 1920s-1930s Stravinsky is far
closer to the jazz of that period (the most popular music of the day) than, say, Adam Yee is to (whats
topical?...) Grizzly Hamster. And one can easily appreciate why!

Being commonplace (or embracing the quotidian) which I steadfastly maintain is not the rle of art-
music is a different thing to including it now and then...

Today at 09:51

__________

Robert Davidson

Id see changes in popular songs as shifts rather than debasements. As melody was perhaps less to the fore
in the 1960s than in the 1930s-1940s, harmony is less to the fore now than in the 1960s other things are
more sophisticated. There are brilliant people working in the field, as always, so their invention will come out
somewhere. Its a bit bizarre to think only art music people have any musical imagination, especially when
theyre in a field unlikely to attract the best talent (fewer rewards).

Anyway, I can see this getting into another huge thread which could be fun, but probably too time-consuming
for now.

Today at 10:17

__________

Robert Davidson

~3~
BTW the OzCo [Australia Council for the Arts] recently made public some principles for measuring Artistic
Vibrancy that include some things that have sometimes been neglected by contemporary art music
composers:

The elements of artistic vibrancy are:

artistic quality or excellence
audience engagement and stimulation
a fresh approach to the preservation or development of the artform
artist development
community relevance

But I guess thats red rag to a bull...?

Today at 10:55

__________

Ian Shanahan

The changes I hear in popular songs are definitely debasements. What are the other things that you think
are more sophisticated nowadays, Robert? (Only the sound-engineering, so far as I can tell...) If there are,
as you say, brilliant people working in the field, then I hear precious little evidence of it outfits like Groove
Collective excepted; but whole regions (like indie pop) seem to me to be brilliance-free zones. Aha! You do
admit that there are fewer rewards in art-music; so the so-called best talent gets into the alternatives for
the money after all... Gotcha.

The OzCo criteria. All of these have always been achieved by the best art-music. I see no problem here.

Today at 11:37

__________

Robert Davidson

I dont see a conflict in my claim that indie musicians are primarily motivated by artistic concerns and the
observation that the rewards are (on the surface) fewer in art music its not some sort of all-or-nothing
affair.

For me the brilliance is in many areas, but one is in the ability to reference huge corpuses of meaning
through symbolic use of borrowed bits and pieces the meta-musical side of things, which is a great gift of
postmodernism (though of course it existed before, just wasnt as sophisticated). John Oswald writes well
about it.

Today at 11:51

__________

Ian Shanahan

There are indeed fewer worldly rewards in art-music, precisely because it has been forced to the margins by
an increasingly dystopian society which doesnt want real quality, only fast food and its McCultural
equivalents instead. But I forgot to add: most indie musicians probably lack both the necessary talent and the
prerequisite knowledge (e.g. of sophisticated harmonic and rhythmic procedures [like irregular metric
changes, or metric modulation as in Carter]; score-reading skills; historical knowledge of the art-music
canon) to be able to get meaningfully into art-music; many would if they could, Im sure but since they cant,

~4~
they have to slum it... But at least theres money to be made by milking an ignorant public i.e. the majority
of people out there in TwitterLand and Televisionville.

You write: For me the brilliance is in many areas, but one is in the ability to reference huge corpuses of
meaning through symbolic use of borrowed bits and pieces the meta-musical side of things, which is a
great gift of postmodernism. POSTmodernism? This concept is ENTIRELY from the domain of modernism
(on its macro time-scale, not just its micro, post-1900), starting with the Ars Nova (who did this sort of thing
pretty sophisticatedly during the 14th century). The pinnacle is arguably Berios Sinfonia a modernist work
or certain pieces by B. A. Zimmermann (ditto). And I do this myself in, for example, that alto-flute piece of
mine you heard 10+ years ago (it encapsulates a little bit of cap-doffing to Chris Dench and Paul Koonce,
WITHOUT direct quotation of their musics [because thats more subtle...]). Id take some convincing that any
popular music has reached that level of complexity in its interreferentiality! But by all means try... And do
please tell me more about John Oswald; thats a new name to me.

So: what other areas of brilliance are you thinking of, Robert?

Getting back to the OzCow [Australia Council for the Arts] criteria, here are a few more observations:

1. The 3rd criterion is decidedly modernist!

2. When they speak of audience engagement and stimulation and community relevance, they had better
not mean merely counting bums on seats. Theyd better recognize that there are different audiences
(sometimes with little or no overlap) and not dismissively regard smaller audiences as somehow unworthy.
As for the community relevance, well: (a) the (cultural) intelligentsia small though it is by comparison with
the hoi polloi is part of the community, and (b) great art is always relevant to the community
regardless of whether or not the majority happen to appreciate it because it adds to the nations cultural
wealth.

3. The first criterion is vague: quality or excellence relative to what? This dictum could be enacted in many
even contradictory ways.

10 hours ago

__________

Thomas Green

That is even more so the case nowadays: so much popular (Top 40) music this century is far cruder
harmonically, for instance than it ever was during the 1950s and 1960s

Regarding the statement above: Ian, youve got to be kidding... 4KQs entire musical library for their Jukebox
Saturday Night program poses a sizable challenge to your claim ... (as much as I love Jukebox Saturday
Night).

Besides, we all already know that harmonic complexity by itself is an inappropriate thing with which to
evaluate the overall sophistication of pop music. Thats like picking rhythm instead of counterpoint as
something notable to examine in Bachs music.

Arguing that Bachs rhythms are childish compared to those of the 20th century, thus concluding that his
music is inferior, would be exceedingly shallow, and quite tiresome to bother refuting.

Indeed, the practice of reducing music into quantifiable, empirical elements might be useful to examine some
types of music, but we should remember that this process itself is part of Western tradition, and isnt always
so readily applicable to other music or forms of art, especially if theyre not directly part of that lineage, and
especially when what is highlighted in that music as interesting isnt something which was traditionally
examined in this way.

~5~
Id say more but Ive got to go and get my kids smile

10 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

Id say more too, but Ive got to get my lectures ready. Love Sinfonia to bits, but would call it postmodern
(wasnt he influenced by Eco, quite a postmodernist?) but Im really not into all these categories, Im just
defending the unbelievably rich music going on now the best time ever for music, as far as Im concerned.
Regarding John Oswald Plunderphonics check it out. Criticising the general public for ignorance might be
fun, but its just not true and its not going to make you many friends. People are sophisticated, and were in a
golden age, not a dark age.

Theres a lot of meaning in just a sound and its play with a vast cocktail of referential sounds that I find
exciting in, say, Fiery Furnaces or Fleet Foxes, just to stay with the Fs. Yes, quodlibets etc. did it before,
but its more subtle now, even (Id argue) than Sinfonia in some ways, which is great, but one could call it
convoluted.

9 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

And popular doesnt equal Top 40 its a huge, vast, teeming field of creative effort.

9 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

@Thomas. Pit the harmonic language if one could call it that! of any recent rap, country, pop, rock, hip-
hop, or doof against that of any song by A. C. Jobim, say, who made it to the Top 20 in the U.S. (let alone
anything by John Coltrane). I rest my case. And Jobim beats them all in every other way too. (NB: ...
harmonically, for instance ... I picked just one parameter as an example, so the remainder of your
objection falls.) What Im talking about is the totality of the music-as-vocable (putting aside any quotation or
external relationality for the moment [yet if its internals dont grab ya, then who gives a damn about the
rest?]): i.e. the earlier pops relative acoustic, instrumental and textural richness; its relative subtlety in pitch-
and rhythmic structures; its overall inner informational density. And even the older pop boys musics pale into
insignificance in this regard when compared with that of certain of their contemporaneous art-music
composer colleagues (e.g. Britten, late Stravinsky, Messiaen, Carter, ...)

And incidentally, J. S. Bachs rhythmic language is definitely simpler than that of Messiaen or Stravinsky, say.
But theyre centuries apart, so here it would be unfair to draw conclusions...

You wrote: the practice of reducing music into quantifiable, empirical elements might be useful to examine
some types of music, but we should remember that this process itself is part of Western tradition, and isnt
always so readily applicable to other music or forms of art, especially if theyre not directly part of that
lineage, and especially when what is highlighted in that music as interesting isnt something which was
traditionally examined in this way. Well now, recent rap, country, pop, rock, et al. ALL come from a Western
tradition or have been part of it for a long time. Crudity a paucity of musico-acoustical information is still in

~6~
the end just ... crudity; and that simply bores me, wastes my time, and makes me angry regardless of its
cultural origins. OK?

@Robert. Berios Sinfonia was pushing the envelope in several ways therefore its definitely,
quintessentially modernist. (Funny that you mention Eco: he came to a gig I did in Bologna, 1988; later, at his
request, I gave him a recorder lesson! Id say his writings are modernist, too and for the very same reasons
[intertextuality is as old as the hills].) You write: Im just defending the unbelievably rich music going on now.
No, youre defending music that is, relatively speaking, a poverty despite its much-vaunted cross-
referencing (big deal, I say, if it sounds like shit). Ahh, plunderphonics came across that in the late
1980s. You write: Criticising the general public for ignorance might be fun, but its just not true and its not
going to make you many friends. People are sophisticated, and were in a golden age, not a dark age. Well,
the majority of the public ARE ignorant and unsophisticated, Robert for compelling evidence of that, just
look at the mindless drivel which nowadays engages the masses on commercial television! A techno-driven
dark age IS pretty well upon us... sigh

Theres a lot of meaning in just a sound absolutely! But concerning musical cross-referentiality, I bet none
of the mob you mention have the quotations coming out of internal compositional processes. Its easy
enough to inject smart-arse quotes, timbral references etc. out of nowhere, plucking them out of the ether;
but integrating them into deeper structural processes is another kettle of fish entirely one that, I strongly
suspect (given pop musics basic idiolects) is beyond their capabilities.

And popular doesnt equal Top 40 its a huge, vast, teeming field of creative effort. From what I hear, its
more like a vast, steaming pile of sonic shit!

4 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

Ian, to me you sound like a dogmatic fundamentalist. I can answer all of these points, but it would take many
pages. Maybe a solid defense of the current cultural golden age is a worthy project, so who knows? When I
get a moment I may write a paper. But it doesnt seem too worth it, as the views youre espousing seem to
belong to a past age and most of us have sensibly moved on to greener and richer pastures.

4 hours ago via Email reply

__________

Ian Shanahan

What a cop-out, Robert a tentative ad hominem, followed by an I-couldnt-be-bothered brush-off. Is that

how things are done in academe north of the border these days? wink

I sound like a fundamentalist? Look in the mirror, mate, and youll see a fundamentalist vernacularist
desperately trying to defend what to me and to many other highly qualified colleagues I know across the
planet is garbage! My views are indeed of the (not-too-distant) past and yet they are also utterly of the
present upholding time-honoured standards of artistic excellence is ever apropos, now more than ever
before (given Western cultures decline [thanks America]) and from this side of the fence, your most of us
(whoever they may be: the ignorant masses?) have foolishly moved on to brown and arid wastelands.

So I issue you a challenge: NO MORE VERBIAGE; instead, send me an audio CD (none of that YouTube
bullshit with its visual distractions, since were talking about MUSIC) of what you regard to be the very best
paragons of recent vernacular music; the stuff youve been gushing about. No background information, no
programme notes or any other verbal scaffolding; just the usual track listings (band plus track-title) alone. Let

~7~
its contents stand or fall on its own merits. Ill listen to it all with open ears, I promise, and respond on my
Facebook Wall. OK? My postal address is 57 Yates Ave, Dundas Valley NSW 2117.

3 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

BTW the weakness of intertextuality as a musics primary vehicle of merit is that for it to work, it depends
ENTIRELY on the background knowledge of its audient. Otherwise, what is revealed is just an emperors-
new-clothes that is a poverty patched together from threadbare musical fabric...

During 1990 in Japan, I sat with some young Korean musicians listening to the London Symphony Orchestra
playing some Charles Ives followed by some (earlyish) Isang Yun. For the Ives piece, I registered all of its
intertextuality whereas the Koreans did not in the slightest; for the Yun (which I was told later had numerous
Korean folk-music references), the boot was of course on the other foot. And yet all of us appreciated the
very high quality of the music, because the source of its merits lay in other aspects of its sound-organization
where things really count.

3 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

Now, sans any further logoi, I await your CD...

3 hours ago

__________

Robert Davidson

How things are done in academe in Qld, as elsewhere, is to publish in peer-reviewed literature, not
Facebook. Thats what I need to get back to, of course its only a brush-off in terms of not having time.

Most of us includes many of the leading musicologists, composers, arts funding bodies and intellectuals in
other art forms.

I can put together a track list for you whether I can get it together to post a CD off to you is another matter.
Whats my incentive? To get more abuse from you?

3 hours ago via Email reply

__________

Robert Davidson

Quickly off the top of my head, some great tracks/pieces from the last few years, mostly 2009. Well, great
isnt the right word the idea of masterpiece etc. doesnt sit well with my concept of new music its about
the whole scene really, not individual artefacts or outstanding geniuses. Im not brilliant at top ten lists, as it
shifts every day.

~8~
Why do I like these? They say something about living now, they express something true, theyre refreshing,
special, inventive, often lovely and richly imaginative, and mostly because theyve got good lyrics, which is
often the point for me.

The videos are worth seeing theyre part of it, just like stagings part of opera weird, anomalous idea to
think of music as just sounds. Lyrics are inseparable too.

Grizzly Bear Two Weeks

Fleet Foxes He doesnt know why
Sufjan Stevens Come on! Feel the illinoise!
Fiery Furnaces The Garfield El
Pat Metheny & Lyle Mays The Way Up (opening if you want a selection)
Flaming Lips Do you realize?
Clare Bowditch Start of war
Phoenix 1901
Gorillaz Superfast Jellyfish
LCD Soundsystem Daft Punk is playing at my house
Radiohead Weird Fishes/Arpeggi
Joker Tron
Broken Social Scene World Sick
Yeah Yeah Yeahs Zero
Animal Collective My Girls
Girls Lust for Life

2 hours ago via Email reply

__________

Thomas Green

Actually this whole conversation is rather uninspiring, because what it comes down to is nothing more than
an inconsequential defense of someone intractably labeling all pop music as shit, and this is surely a
pointless exercise from all our points of view.

That is to say, it doesnt matter how much Ian calls it shit, indeed, no amount of philosophising about the
topic will help me to change my mind about the virtues of music of the present day (including a lot of pop),
because at the core of things this is not at all based on theorising but rather my own personal musical
appreciation (which at its basis is not dependent on any sort of conscious theorising).

Conversely, am I really expected to believe that any amount of musical counterexamples will change Ians
mind, if they resemble those already in his crudity category? Ian seems to be keen on honesty. Well, lets
cut to the chase then! Im sorry, but no further amount of invectiveness will convince me that his assessment
of what is a vast, steaming pile of sonic shit is nothing more than a cool-headed rational assessment;
instead of actually being a matter of Ians own subjective musical tastes. Could you honestly object to that?

If not, then what indeed is the point of all this? Nobody is going to convince anyone.

2 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

Does one behave as a scholar or intellectual only in those formal contexts? Hmmm... I thought the
principles of intellectual discourse were the same whatever the context. Facebook is no excuse for sloppy
thinking, etc. Likewise, Robert, I have better things to do too with my time (e.g. getting back to the books and

~9~
music Im writing; and to disseminating a text Im writing on metamathematics as an antidote to the
excessive scientism of certain atheists [who ought to know better, since they are scientists]). Remember, you
are the one making assertions on your Wall; I am merely challenging them, requiring you to put up or shut
up (as they say). So far, Ive been very underwhelmed by the exemplars you provided. But my challenge
and my genuine openness to having my mind on this matter changed by you remains.

Most of us. Well the numerous leading musicologists and composers I know from around the world
invariably agree with me; most arts-funding bodies (whose musically-unqualified bureaucrats opinions on
music arent worth a damn anyway) have sold out to ochlocracy under pressure from Right-Wing politics and
ideology; and the views of so-called intellectuals in other art-forms are irrelevant when it comes to music.

More abuse? I havent ANYWHERE abused you Robert, but I have savaged what Ive encountered of the
music you are seeking to defend or glorify. Your hesitation here reeks of fear that the music you send along
to me mightnt stand up to rigorous scrutiny? (Anyway, could I not accuse you of abuse in throwing the
fundamentalist tag at me [again] and in repeatedly proposing on the other thread that I am somehow
musically deaf or dont get it? [Poppycock!]) Your incentive with this little exercise is that you might
LEARN SOMETHING (as might I, which is why Im asking to hear the music).

Well, great isnt the right word the idea of masterpiece etc. doesnt sit well with my concept of new
music. Well now Robert, that admission is MOST revealing... its reminiscent of Oscar Wildes remark that
mediocrity is always at its best. If you set your standards lower than greatness, then youre much more
likely to achieve success or, rather, a faux-success. Here we have a textbook example of the triumph of
postmodernism: the championing of also-rans (or worse). With that attitude, how can you ever hope to
compose a masterpiece yourself? With every major work Ive ever written, Ive reached for the stars. And in
case you think that there arent any masterpieces being composed anymore, on the local front try Michael
Smetanins Micrographia (its on the CD from Gordon Kerrys recent book); this piece could well be one
time will tell, of course.

Why do I like these? .... Im not reading on, because I EXPRESSLY asked you for no supporting
verbiage. Let the music you forward to me stand or fall purely on its own (de)merits.

The videos are worth seeing theyre part of it, just like stagings part of opera weird, anomalous idea to
think of music as just sounds. Crap! Are you telling me youve never listened to an opera on CD, sans
staging? (Good luck if you ever want to experience Messiaens St Francis.) If the music youre proposing
NEEDS the video footage, then its FAILED already.

The list. (OK, Ill give Grizzly Bear another chance.) Please send the long even as mp3s via YouSendIt,
if thats any easier.

Please, NO MORE WORDS. Just transmit the sounds, please.

2 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

@Thomas, who wrote:

1. ... what it comes down to is nothing more than an inconsequential defense of someone intractably
labeling all pop music as shit, and this is surely a pointless exercise from all our points of view.

This completely misrepresents my actual position (making it out, falsely, to be a blanket 100% denunciation).
So, for the record, I submit once again that most indeed, almost all pop music I encounter nowadays by
chance (I never actively seek it out) is shit: I declare this by comparison of it with most art-music and by

~ 10 ~
comparison of it with Western vernacular musics from earlier decades. You seem to have not been reading
my posts properly, Thomas.

2. ... no amount of philosophising about the topic will help me to change my mind about the virtues of music
of the present day (including a lot of pop), because at the core of things this is not at all based on theorising
but rather [on] my own personal musical appreciation (which at its basis is not dependent on any sort of
conscious theorising).

This, Thomas, is nothing short of an admission of your own closed-mindedness. (And youre doing a PhD!?
Christ Almighty!) Indeed, it is a baldfaced confession that whatever you learn about musics theoretics
cannot, and will never, serve to evolve your own musical sensibilities: theyre forever marooned on an island
ruled by mere theoretically-uninformed taste. I pity you, truly I do.

3. Conversely, am I really expected to believe that any amount of musical counter examples will change
Ians mind, if they resemble those already in his crudity category?

Well, Robert is claiming that such things arent crude. Im prepared to suspend judgement until Ive heard the
music itself. (Resemblance to other music is neither here nor there. Dont you think Im aware of good and
bad pieces in the genres I uphold?) My request is indicative of my open-mindedness.

4. Ian seems to be keen on honesty. Well, lets cut to the chase then! Im sorry, but no further amount of
invectiveness will convince me that his assessment of what is a vast, steaming pile of sonic shit is nothing
more than a cool-headed rational assessment; instead of actually being a matter of Ians own subjective
musical tastes.

Ian is keen on honesty. Ian had and has a lot more to contribute besides invectiveness. When Ian
actually attempted to objectively critique certain aspects of such musics internal attributes on the basis of,
for example, its harmonies informational richness and interrelationality or lack thereof (a pretty normal
thing among composers, one might expect), what was the response from Thomas? Questionable statements
like we all already know that harmonic complexity by itself is an inappropriate thing with which to evaluate
the overall sophistication of pop music, etc. Dodging and weaving! Ian cant win either way when trying to
engage with a mind that by its own admission! (see 2.) is closed.

By the way, Thomas: musical taste is as you yourself affirm subjective; however, musical merit is an
entirely different animal functioning independently of taste which can be largely gauged objectively. This is
something Ive come to understand in 40+ years of serious music-making. (Ive already insinuated here what
some of musical merits objective criteria are; heres another one wit [note the polysemy; think about it].)

5. ... Could you honestly object to that? If not, then what indeed is the point of all this?

Yes, Ian does honestly object. The point is to test objectively the merit of the music, which I eagerly await.

6. Nobody is going to convince anyone.

Speak for yourself, Thomas, not for me.

And since youve clarified your own ossified position on the matter, Id ask that you PLEASE refrain from any
further comment until Ive heard and critiqued the music that Robert hopefully proffers. Im not in the best of
health, and as I remarked earlier I have more important things to do than to respond here anymore.

54 minutes ago

__________

Robert Davidson

~ 11 ~
I think Ill bow out now Im not scared, Ian (Im just enthralled). Im not interested in writing masterpieces or
other manifestations of the Great White Men view of history. Thats one fab thing weve learnt from the
smashing together of Africa and Europe in American popular music.

And I very much doubt Im going to learn something from someone with such a resolutely closed mind.
Fundamentalist isnt an accusation, merely a dispassionate observation.

Its OK for someone to gush about music they like on Facebook (yes, I dont have to be a scholar everywhere
the very idea!). If youre not happy about that, submit a paper for review to the Contemporary Music
Review. Ive named some tracks check them out if you like, but I doubt youll like them. Youve still got so
far to go in understanding how to listen (another non-ad-hominem, evidence-based observation).

Ive just been reading Gerry Farrels book on Indian music in the West, where he discusses British musicians
failing to appreciate what was going on in Indian music for two centuries (they dismissed ragas as crude and
primitive caterwauling) because they didnt ask the musicians and get their perspective. When that finally
happened, a glorious world was revealed. Similar riches await you if you approach contemporary popular
music humbly with an open mind.

Im out back to innocent Facebook posts on music I like.

7 hours ago

__________

Thomas Green

Ill add one final thing, despite my being instructed to go away.

Ian, do you imagine that you would all of a sudden foster a real dislike the music of, say, Messian [sic!],
because someone on the internet said this or that about it? If not, would that be justification for me calling
you closed-minded?

And I dont at all buy into your attempt to shade this as an academic debate. Because, actually, were not
arguing a premise which is particularly academic that is, it seems, that were discussing your assertion that
almost all pop music is shit. And its this assertion which Im suggesting we will make no headway with,
because say what you will, its patently obvious to me and to anyone reading this that its based on personal
taste rather than anything academic.

But Ill leave it there, because Im still quite unconvinced that this is going anywhere useful.

4 hours ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

@Robert.

1. Im not interested in writing masterpieces or other manifestations of the Great White Men view of history.
Thats one fab thing weve learnt from the smashing together of Africa and Europe in American popular
music.

Then youll certainly get what you wish for, Robert... And such disinterest accounts for why there are almost
no recent American masterpieces, just a plethora of mediocrity and worse (Elliott Carter and a couple of
others excepted...).

~ 12 ~
2. And I very much doubt Im going to learn something from someone with such a resolutely closed mind.
Fundamentalist isnt an accusation, merely a dispassionate observation.

Really, whos the one with the closed mind and fundamentalist attitudes here, Robert? You, actually the
man who, by his own admission, is (among other things) not interested in writing masterpieces. Conversely,
I have (a) provided you with my own ideas via my writings (my Cage paper, my PhD text from which you
could definitely learn something) and (b) repeatedly invited you to change my mind about the worth of recent
vernacular music you think has value. On that front, Im still waiting for the music itself beyond your
repeated, unsubstantiated assertions about how marvellous it really is. Despite your protestations to the
contrary, its bleeding obvious as evinced by what you have written here on Facebook that you ARE a
card-carrying fundamentalist rigidly adhering to the lies of postmodern (and anti-modernist) dogma. Dont
forget, YOU were the one to inject the nowadays heavily-loaded pejorative label fundamentalist do you
know what this word really means? into the discourse as a personal insult, hardly an act of dispassionate
observation... And, judging by your Topology piece, I know I could teach you a thing or two about certain
aspects of compositional craft and technique. Are you prepared to learn?

3. Its OK for someone to gush about music they like on Facebook (yes, I dont have to be a scholar
everywhere the very idea!).

Maybe not a scholar, but an intellectual then. I always try to maintain high-mindedness whatever the medium
(but then, since according to you that mind is closed, I must be wrong).

4. Ive named some tracks check them out if you like, but I doubt youll like them.

By the sound of this, you have already closed my mind for me! How open-minded of you...

5. Youve still got so far to go in understanding how to listen (another non-ad-hominem, evidence-based
observation).

This is just so incredibly insulting particularly given that I am at least as qualified, knowledgeable, honoured
by awards, and experienced an all-round professional musician and educator as you are. Where is the
evidence for this outrageous contention beyond my negative judgement of some pop(ulist) music you
happen to like that is demonstrably crude and simple-minded in its morphology?

Now my patience is exhausted...

6. Ive just been reading Gerry Farrels book on Indian music in the West, where he discusses British
musicians failing to appreciate what was going on in Indian music for two centuries (they dismissed ragas as
crude and primitive caterwauling) because they didnt ask the musicians and get their perspective. When that
finally happened, a glorious world was revealed.

Those British musicians experiences of, and failure to appreciate, Indian music are utterly alien to mine! My
education at the University of Sydney thanks to people like Peter Platt, Winsome Evans, Peter Sculthorpe,
Ian Fredericks, and Allan Marrett exposed me to an ASTONISHING array of musics from all around the
world (including Indian music [thanks Professor Platt!]), in conjunction with their cultural and theoretical
backgrounds. So my ears are now very highly knowledged and nuanced, thanks very much.

7. Similar riches await you if you approach contemporary popular music humbly with an open mind.

I approach ALL music humbly with an open mind together with a considerable knowledge, intellect and
aesthetic discernment. Alas, Ive encountered almost nothing Id characterize as riches among
contemporary popular music as yet only, so far, a morass of artistic impoverishment. (But I have invited
you to convert me. Are you still up for it, Robert?)

8. Im out back to innocent Facebook posts on music I like.

~ 13 ~
Returning to your closed, comfortable musical coterie? Well, pardon me for ever upsetting your smug cultural
equipoise and challenging your quotidian supermarket aesthetic with a dissenting viewpoint...

about an hour ago

__________

Thomas Green

Ian, youre the one who keeps saying stuff like how your world of high art is being swamped by some tide of
banality, and yet at the very same time you endeavour to defend your assertion on Robs wall that almost all
pop music is shit (in your words) as an academically oriented statement and worth debating rationally.

Dont you even find that a little bit ironic?

about an hour ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

@ Thomas.

1. Ill add one final thing, despite my being instructed to go away.

What I wrote was: Id ask that you PLEASE refrain from any further comment until Ive heard and critiqued
the music that Robert hopefully proffers. Thats a request for a temporary reprieve, not an order to piss off. I
do take it you can read English properly?

2. Ian, do you imagine that you would all of a sudden foster a real dislike the music of, say, Messian [sic!],
because someone on the internet said this or that about it? If not, would that be justification for me calling
you closed-minded?

Most likely not (itd depend very much on what they had to say); and no. But Thomas, I deduced your closed-
mindedness purely from what you yourself had to say about formulating your own aesthetic sensibility.

3. And I dont at all buy into your attempt to shade this as an academic debate.

Being on Facebook, this debate is, ipso facto, not academic; but I did aspire to it being intellectual.

4. Because, actually, were not arguing a premise which is particularly academic that is, it seems, that
were discussing your assertion that almost all pop music is shit. And its this assertion which Im suggesting
we will make no headway with, ...

Youre cherry-picking the discourse, Thomas; it embraced, as I showed last time, discussion of such musics
mechanics well beyond my assertion.

5. ... because say what you will, its [sic!] patently obvious to me and to anyone reading this that its based on
personal taste rather than anything academic.

Patently obvious? Only if one chooses as you have to ignore the salient, objective details herein (and on
Roberts other Facebook thread) concerning what I just described as pop musics mechanics.

6. But Ill leave it there, because Im still quite unconvinced that this is going anywhere useful.

Please do keep your promise for the time being.

~ 14 ~
about an hour ago

__________

Thomas Green

Ian, this is not a formal discussion. If I decide to leave another post, it just means Ive changed my mind
which is my prerogative and Im not breaking any rules of etiquette.

By the way, asking someone to do something, even if you use the word please can very well be read as an
instruction. Nitpicking at small points like that just needlessly draws out the conversation.

Apart from that, Ive really only this to say about your statement: Youre cherry-picking the discourse,
Thomas;

Im certainly not. What Ive done is cut to the heart of the matter. This sort of statement is one that youve
frequently returned to Ian, and it is exactly this sort of statement which elicits the defenses from me and
others. It is specifically these statements which people such as myself would take objection to, much more
so than any of your other comments.

If you were, at the outset, to make more reasonable statements, youd encounter much fewer objections. Its
as simple as that. As it stands, you say something quite unreasonable and go about making a lengthy
justification of it, and this is quite tiresome (no doubt for you too).

I mean to say, are we supposed to sit here and intelligently unpack exactly what it is that you mean by a
vast, steaming pile of sonic shit as if youre owed some sort of special courtesy?

about an hour ago

__________

Ian Shanahan

@Thomas.

Well, you didnt leave it there for very long, now did you...

1. Ian, youre the one who keeps saying stuff like how your world of high art is being swamped by some tide
of banality, ...

Not just my world, or your world (still less the world of high art), Thomas, but THE world ... the whole
god-damned planet!

2. ... and yet at the very same time you endeavour to defend your assertion on Robs wall that almost all
pop music is shit (in your words) as an academically oriented statement and worth debating rationally.

Your logic here is unclear to me, Thomas. But I would think that ANY serious assertion by a learned person
is worth debating rationally. I cannot, however, recall claiming anywhere above (or implying) that my
assertion was in itself an academically oriented statement: this smacks of eisegesis on your part.

3. Dont you even find that a little bit ironic?

No because Ive done a lot more here than merely make a banal assertion!

about an hour ago

~ 15 ~
__________

Ian Shanahan

@Thomas ... yet again.

1. What Ive done is cut to the heart of the matter.

... and yet again ignored the rest of the body of the text.

Im through detailedly rebutting you point-by-point. If you (and/or others) are blinded by the strength of a pithy
statement to me one that is reasonable because theres a great deal of (private) reasoning that has gone
on behind its formulation to the exclusion of the remainder of the discourse, then that is YOUR problem,
not mine.

2. By the way, asking someone to do something, even if you use the word please can very well be read as
an instruction.

I am not responsible for the way you interpret things. It was a pretty straightforward unambiguous request, I
would have thought...

3. If you were, at the outset, to make more reasonable statements, youd encounter much fewer objections.
Its as simple as that. As it stands, you say something quite unreasonable and go about making a lengthy
justification of it, and this is quite tiresome...

I have a lot of experience at debating matters, Thomas. I dont mind objections from others. But I dont need
you to tell me how to suck eggs. And when you have acquired my qualifications, experience, and status in
music if you ever do you might just then be in a position to pontificate to me whether or not a statement I
make concerning music is quite unreasonable. At present, youve got a long way to go...

4. I mean to say, are we supposed to sit here and intelligently unpack exactly what it is that you mean by a
vast, steaming pile of sonic shit as if youre owed some sort of special courtesy?

You (and whoever else is along for the ride) can do as you please, Thomas. But Im the one doing the
intelligent unpacking here. As for being owed some sort of special courtesy, no, Ive never felt the right to
such an entitlement. But given my track-record etc. in music, I do feel that I am entitled to be accorded a little
respect, and not to be patronised by a younger colleague lacking that track-record.

And yet again, you obsessively focus upon one juicy quote to the exclusion of everything else...

50 minutes ago

__________

~ 16 ~