Not going to make this too long (hopefully)...

Listening to classical radio this morning and the host gave a bit of info on the next piece, which was one of Mozart's final string quintets...

A lot of the classical canon is unique, in relation to pop music, as it tends to highlight and mythologize a composer's *later* work rather than his earlier or mid-period stuff. It rarely writes off earlier work, but critics/commentators tend to see a composer's catalog in a rather linear way, the implicit assumption being that as the composer gained experience and time, his works became both better and often more bold. There are exceptions to this rule, but they're surprisingly rare. Late Beethoven, late Mozart, late Sibelius, late Brahms, etc... a composer's "late" work stands as the composer's best, or at least most innovative, ambitious, or compelling.

This is at complete odds with how we often think about pop music. The reason that quote from High Fidelity sticks with music fans - "is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away?" - is because pop artists *do* tend to get criticized for their latter years. If in classical music genius is found at the end of the composer's life and work, in pop music the opposite stands true: genius burns bright and fierce at the beginning of the pop artist's career and then dims and dies as he or she continues on. There are, in a sense, two spectrums here, two chronologies of "genius" that almost contradict each other.

Why? What's changed? My gut says it actually has to do with both the professionalization of the music business and the simultaneous evolution of the music recording. The type of pressures on a nineteenth century composer were very different than on a modern pop artist. The pressure to hit immediately, for a pop artist, is underscored by our virtual ignorance of any sort of "up-and-coming" trial period, which is sort of written out of the equation by the majors. The biographies of composers and their works are riddled with examples of the public's early scorn... yet they managed to work their way into favor and, eventually, canonization. Pop music tends to be less forgiving.

*shrug* Any thoughts? I'm not sure where jazz fits into all of this...

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

it's true

Duke Ellington is like right in the middle. He lived so long that his later work isn't even really considered. It's not dismissed just not even considered. The same is true of his early work though. I've brought it up here and elsewhere but late twenties and thirties Duke is fucking golden and is the only reason he was able to become the god he was made later because he had people steady checking for him. But now, nobody pays attention to that stuff.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

His "jungle music"phase or whatever it's called. It was rawer and not as sophisticated as his later stuff but the finesse was there...

Anyway, jazz-artists in general are mostly revered for their middle work. In their early stage, they have often not found a personal style yet and the technique toll off the ideas they have convincingly may be lacking. As for the later stuff, prior to the whole Wynton-scene, jazz-criticism has largely favoured artists that have been (semi) cutting edge for their time (see: the reason why so little straight jazz from the 70's is revered) and by default, aging artists have suffered because of this...

http://www.discogs.com/Duke-Ellington-Masterpieces-1926-1949/release/1346967

That British label Proper does those "budget" box sets that look cheap, but that is the only way to get a lot of those recordings. It's usually pretty cheap on Amazon (and worth every penny).

There's also a Mingus one:
http://www.discogs.com/Charlie-Mingus-The-Young-Rebel/release/1783772

It's all stuff he played on as a sideman before he had really made a name for himself. But again, it's got a lot of stuff that makes its CD debut (the trio stuff with Tal Farlow and Red Norvo is especially good).

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

thanks for the links...

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

. . .is Charles Mingus.

But I think it's gets ignored because it was the 70's and he was still working entirely with acoustic instruments.

Unfortunately.

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

The myth that has been steady building around Epitaph is of Black/Brown/Beige proportions, so his later stuff may yet be redeemed (if only by academics seeking to make a name for themselves...).


-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

The "suite" albums he did in the late 60's and early 70's are not only some of his most ambitious works, they are serious business in the bigger scheme of his discography. And his playing in those later years was just as good as ever. Check out this album if you don't know it: http://www.allmusic.com/album/live-at-the-whitney-r233285/review

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Can you really say that, though? Duke's biggest selling record was Newport 56, way past the height of big band swing. The Penguin Guide to Jazz I have gives New Orleans Suite, Far East Suite, and Afro-Eurasian Eclipse 4 stars each (and rightly so, they're fantastic.)

the later work not being dismissed, just sort of being ignored...

You can quibble w/some later Duke, but he was still doing epic stuff of very high caliber through his final productive years - in addition to the A-E Eclipse, all the sacred concerts get sort of overlooked - but that stuff doesn't get mentioned in the same breath as earlier classic recordings.

But I agree w/imcvspl, part of that is just the breadth and quantity of the music... rather than a sign of the music itself...


-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

It isn't about maturity or technical mastery/experimentation. It's about, and predominantly made by, young people. It's at its best when it's brash, energetic, and built on bold ideas that are more muscle and cum than wisdom and forethought.

Disclaimers:
- Not to be read as a criticism, btw. I like pop music and I like that aspect of pop music. If I want mature music, I usually turn to jazz or classical.
- There are exceptions.

--

I actually wouldn't use the word "immature," but I essentially agree with you... in that what is valued between the two camps is very different, with one privileging craft more than the other.

I wonder, though, *why* that is... or rather, how that came to be the dominant mentality?




-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

With classical and jazz you have to pay dues first. Be that playing with established folk, composing within the standard formats or other. You have to show that you fit within the cannon first and then you can step out on your own.

pop seeks out artists that 'stand out' first without a sense of longevity. this unfortunately produces many one hit wonders or artists that can't live up to their first releases. alternately though there are artists that are genuinely developed and not coincidentally these seem to be the ones that have the most longevity and can see successes in their latter years.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Whereas the jazz or classical musician comes up, writes a shitload of stuff with minimal shine, or plays a bunch of gigs and studio sessions before they can break out...

I mean, I guess all of this is no surprise - the standards for quality between the two "sides" are extremely different, so no surprise that the paths followed to get to each standard are themselves distinct...

it's interesting to me though. and it's worthwhile to try to think of exceptions on both end of the spectrum.


-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

Getting ready to head out to a funeral so not much time, but there was a good interview on Fresh Air couple of months ago that touched on a lot of different aspects of creativity (link below). In relation to points here I recall he discussed a tendency for creative people to settle into habits that end up limiting creativity in the long run, which may account for some of the perceived stagnation in pop artists, if they are continuing to use similar approaches or formula - I would be inclined to think that the propensity for reinvention (and subsequently increased depth) is related to self-awareness and motivation in this regard, and that the more intense study required of 'classical' artists might more readily lead to this kind of awareness via this more intense period of development. Though in saying this, I do not suggest academics or genre to be the important factors, only that pop traditions are probably not as likely to encourage this approach, since even the forms are less linear and so not as focused on 'development' as they are cycles/repetitions. Not saying either approach is necessarily better, of course. (needed to clarify some of this further, but time is up)

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/148607182/fostering-creativity-and-imagination-in-the-workplace

-------

http://soundcloud.com/ajiav
http://www.last.fm/user/ajiav

Games without front ears / born without ears

a couple of days ago

and the trajectory cobain was taking the band in with his songwriting both refutes and supports your take on pop music

he purposefully made songs as simple as he could, but the subject matter ranged from very dark to being almost nonsensical chants, or using words for their sounds rather than meaning.

Nevermind's pop appeal belied the gritty outsider's perspective of both Bleach, and the town of Aberdeen where the band had its beginnings.

It was a purposeful attempt at being embraced by a larger audience, and I think the further Cobain went along the more he united his darker ideas with catchy melodies

It's funny that the doc cites the Beatles / Lennon as one of Cobain's major influences. Where do the Beatles fit on your spectrum?

They kind of evolved OUT of a pop meaninglessness (where shows were literally drowned out by girls' screams) into being truly generation-defining musicians that attempted to speak to worldly issues.

>It's funny that the doc cites the Beatles / Lennon as one of
>Cobain's major influences. Where do the Beatles fit on your
>spectrum?

I don't know enough about nirvana to comment much on them... but I actually thought of the beatles while I was writing the original post.

They're an interesting case because you have a certain mythology about them, particularly about their early years, where the idea is supposed to be that there was just this early kismet, a natural outpouring of genius... when there's really such a clear arc of growing complexity in their writing and approach to recording, that it seems the myth is covering something up there...

perhaps the even more interesting question is, how are each of the beatles treated *after* the break-up... and how does their music and skill stack up to that treatment?

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

When Beatles-and other bands like them-started out and were at their youngest, pop-rock still a new art-form. If you are talking about white/non-americans making it, wer'e literally dealing with a few years here.

Beatles growth coincided with numerous musicians trying to expand the vocabulary of rock and bringing their own pre-rock'n'roll influences into the fold (=folk, jazz, classical, country, music-hall etc.).Not to take anything away from the Beatles but they were pushed-and simultaneously helped push-by the likes of everyone from the Beach Boys, Dylan and the Byrds to Zappa, hendrix, Pink Floyd etc.

In all eras/styles when a music is new and without too many established cliches, I think age matters less (well, being TOO old/experienced probably won't help because you are too set in your ways to adapt, at least in a convincing matter). Just look at Hip-Hop where Chuck D was like 30 when PE started doing their cutting edge records whereas guys like Rakim and LL were just teenagers at the same time.