Addendum (Foreign v Exotic, and the institutionalization of 'Rock and Roll' )

The Stupid Things I Think About on my Bus Ride to Work:

I feel that an important starting point for this discussion is my previous and brief post 'Hurqalya' and its reply.

foreign |ˈfôrən; ˈfär-| adjective 1. of, from, in, or characteristic of a country or language other than one's own : a foreign language. • dealing with or relating to other countries : foreign policy. • of or belonging to another district or area. • coming or introduced from outside : the quotation is a foreign element imported into the work. • (of a law or restriction) outside the local jurisdiction. 2. strange and unfamiliar : I suppose this all feels pretty foreign to you. • (foreign to) not belonging to or characteristic of : crime and brutality are foreign to our nature and our country.

exotic |igˈzätik| adjective 1. originating in or characteristic of a distant foreign country : exotic birds | they loved to visit exotic places. • attractive or striking because colorful or out of the ordinary : an exotic outfit | [as n. ] (the exotic) there was a touch of the exotic in her appearance. • of a kind not used for ordinary purposes or not ordinarily encountered : exotic elementary particles as yet unknown to science. Noun an exotic plant or animal : he planted exotics in the sheltered garden. • a thing that is imported or unusual : the market in exotics has gone crazy with speculators.

According to the Mac OS Dictionary there is the obvious distinction in that exotic encompasses the concept of foreign in addition to finding it compelling/exciting (so yes Henry, it has that air of sexuality) based on said differences.

===

I got into a discussion at the Southern Girls Rock and Roll Camp After-party with some peeps about the value of the camp, not the issue of 'teaching girls Rock and Roll,' but rather 'teaching girls Rock and Roll.' Focusing of one aspect, or a particular amalgamation of aesthetics of music, to me seems like a waste of time. One of the said peeps viewed it as simply a starting point, which I can totally except. "Rock and Roll is like all encompassing," said the other dude. This however, I have a big problem with. The reason it's viewed as "all encompassing" is because of its propagation, two centuries ago people(1) would have viewed classical in a similar manner. Even then, the genre of Rock and Roll is simply certain arrangement of aural aesthetics(2) within music. I guess it's a see-the-forest-for-the-trees type of argument.

===

So here is where these three points merge. When we back out and see music for the bigger concept that it is rather than the particulars(3), we see where that choices are made regarding which aesthetics are applied in which way to form specific genre (i.e. form, instrumentation, even length), narrowing out certain criteria in favor of others. These choices are of course made with reasons, some of which are conscious some not, some which are merely imitations/expansions of another person's ideas(4), which are tied to the surrounding culture. There is a specific reason why the blues developed the way that it did, from the transplanted Africans trying to force Western tonality to fit the more familiar music of their homeland to the point is at today, as well as every other musical genre. The same is found in every type of music; Maqam, Hindistani, Noh Drama, Thrash Metal, all have these series of choices that determine the "style," but to me the incredibly fascinating aspect is how similar the choices made are. It has always been the similarities between the music of the culture I was raised in and the music of a culture I wasn't that I found very compelling. Even though the singing in a Sludge metal band, or what is now called Doom, is vastly different in regards to some aesthetics from those of Tibetan chants, there are a vast number of similarities.

It is this single aspect that I think keeps me from falling into the Exotic trap. I am drawn to many different types, styles, genres, approaches to music, but because of their underlying similarities, not because of how 'different' or 'weird' it sounds, not because I am bored with the music of my immediate culture, but because I see the parallels and how they all can be traced to the greater music, the all encompassing music that my peep mentioned but was a little too short sighted to understand, from which all sound sculptures are carved, I see them as all derived from the same source. It is the way in which we, the composers(5), apply the aesthetics, the degree at which we turn the blade, the care we take in setting its curves, angles, its motions and rest, the density we arrange in it that determines the skill we have as artists and separates music from sound.

In closing, I doubt any of this is news to anyone.

- Yev Kassem

===

(1) By 'people' I mean those in a Western tradition of thinking, as those are the people involved in this discussion and the point of reference I am working from (also trying to run from, but that's a different story). I'm pretty sure the Japanese did not view their music as under the umbrella term of Western Art Music of the Classical and Romantic periods.

(2) Personal ideology or ethics are not of concern for this discussion. Regardless of the reasons these certain aesthetics are selected, they are. Misogynistic and Feministic Rock and Roll bands often sound the same (ex: GG Allin and L7 are very similar sounding Rock and Roll bands).

(3) I guess it should be said that, to me, music is merely the intention to give aural-specific meaning to produced sounds. It is different than speech in that we have words to describe those meanings, musical meanings, again to me, are beyond description. I can tell you what a song sounds like, or even extra musical ideas associated with the piece, but to explain to you what the meaning of a piece is would be impossible, even stupid since we can just listen to the piece and hear the meaning. Yes, there are problems regarding a lack in communication because peoples vocabulary is so stunted (I would like to tie into this Don Van Vielt quote about why he gave up music because of how far behind poetry and art it was). You can attach all the aesthetics you want, or give a utilitarian purpose, but these are after the fact. By this definition a lecture or a fart could be music, and I am fine with that. I doubt they would stand the test of time because, to me, great art is very dense and multi-layered, whereas a fart is just air escaping the anus. I guess that could have some Buddhist parallels for achieving Nirvana... whatever.

(4) Take, for example, the development of Western Tonality, which was brought about because a large group of people created and adhered to rules to dictate the way in which they could treat harmony. At first this was very simple as people had to move from the previously accepted mode of thinking, which was modal harmony, and as the vocabulary became what we (again, of the Western musical tradition) now call 'natural' composers sought to find exciting new harmonies to entertain themselves and the audience. Often this involved integrating foreign (and/or exoticized) musical elements (i.e. the Arabesque).

(5) Improvisation is also composing, just in real time.