Monday, 26 March 2012

Perspective -1


What is good music? Generally a song follows a scale, or a sequence inside the music theory, d-r-m-f-s-l-t-d, and a batch of noise in combination of silence, fast and slow, loud and low, every popular song follows this, just the difference in degree. If so, what is good music?

Good music, should be not badly produced, played and listened. To put this concept a little bit further, it is to ask what is "not good" music, in the meantime, it is to ask what is bad music. Should we define something as bad of we like? It is not so necessary, however, somehow we have to do it for the sake of “music itself”. A song, if no one says it is good, actually we should not have to define it as bad; on the other hand, if everyone says it is bad but you think it is good, I believe we have the obligation to defend as well as to protect something you believe in. It is to like something, not disliking the music you like.

Therefore, I lay on the belief that good music is a completely personal preference first. It could be whatever reason you like a song or an artist. For instance, the singer looks cool, the music connected with your soul, remind of you something sweet, bitter or bittersweet, make you love your parents and friends and life after you listen to the song or look at the artists. To say a piece of music is not good music, again, it is a completely personal preference like what good music is. The thing which is more important should be, what is bad music, again, I lie on the belief that we have something to protect in life. When everyone says the song is bad and I think it is good, it is the perspective that how bad should we says a song is “bad”. From the previous, good music is not badly produced, played and listened, thus, bad music is badly produced, played and listened. The responsibility of making a music bad is crossing different aspects, production and reception side, as well as the processing in between these two. Bad music, is produced by someone who can’t produced, played by someone who can’t played, as well as listened by people who are not probably listened. In between these three aspects, authenticity is an important concept transcend them. Authentic music should be authentically produced, it is by appropriation but not by “copy” (it is difficult to distinguish between copying and appropriating, but I think it should be accorded by your own listening experience, like the concept of copy-right, it is regarded as copying if you listen to the song you seem to copy before you produce your own song. Therefore, the case here is, if you listen to Eric Clapton at your ages of 80, in which you never listen to Jimi Hendrix before, Eric Clapton’s guitar is not copying in your own term, and he should not be seen as “a thief” from any black music, fair enough); Authentic music should be authentically played, it is by a real communicative process as a player as well as a listener of “the player” in his/her own history; finally, Authentic music should be probably listened/played(as a reception side), it is not determined by the technical equipment, like how much the hi-fi system you have, or how much the earphones you have; or it is vinyl, cassette-player, MD-player, CD-player, MP3 player or whatever, they are just about media channels. It should be, listened and played at the right place in sociological term, we listen to the music but not “ripping off” the music, should we play Metallica’s Sad but true at a wedding? Or we play “Tell Laura I love her” when you propose to Mary? They are dry wit, and they are interesting to put some thoughts on.

Perspective -0

Making music; music making.

First of all, I want to provide an divergent meanings of these two phrases. As a youth who studied popular music in a cultural and popular sense, as well as a music maker at my free-time; Making music, I think that is the most instant communication between you and your instrument, music; and Making music is more or less like making your music a communicative text, to reach other people (of course yourself). Both of them are a communicative process, in the meantime, a creative process. There is no any ethical, or good/bad judgment in distinguishes, however, what I purposed to talk about is the way in which a song or music should be perceived. Popular music is in all time by determination on how it represents the people who listen to it, like a broken-heart song seems to "talk" to the people who lost their love, experiencing an end of relationship; however in academic music it is to see the things another way round, it is to see how the people listen to a certain song and how they use them. For example, in semiotic analysis red could be seen as dangerous but at the same time it could be seen as "lucky" or fortune in Chinese New Years festival. One signifier could be able to have thousands of signified. To apply this concept onto popular music, we always forget the fact that the song or artist you feel connected to is only someone's else song and artist in which he/she feel connected to. The author is dead, like what Roland Barthes said, and interpretation is our best revenge towards a sign, like what Susan Sontag stated. I never forget liking a song or admiring an artist is a feeling, the thing is liking a song or admiring an artist is a emotional response, but at the same time it is an ideological response as well. People have reason on loving or hating a song, we said some song is good while some other is bad, but we don't usually say some song is right while some other is wrong, it is about the taste and judgment, which is built up historically, in a sociological, cultural and historical aspects, and I believe it much relates to how a song is perceived by music lover, like you and me.

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Music talk


走進 O’Neils 的第一句說話就是 ‘Neil Young is my hero, man’

時間過得很快, 一轉眼便年多, 記得跟你第一次接觸是上一年九月, 我發郵件問你, ‘我的 essay 用 Nirvana作例子, 有問題嗎?’ Essay 的題目大概是 what music is to you if it is not only determined by sounds.’ 你一路也沒回我, 到要交文的早兩天才抓著我說, ‘你的 essay 怎樣.’ 我說, 已做好了.’ ‘沒有什麼困難吧’, 你用那一向散漫的態度說著. 我心想, 你去死吧… 口還是說, ‘還好啦, 你會在我的文章裡看到的.’ 最終, 你給我的是一等的成績.

之後 presentation 我用 vinyl 作為題目, 我用了心愛的電影 High Fidelity 的情節及 Simon Frith ‘Art into pop’ 與 ‘Taking music seriously’ 的觀點去說明為何vinyl 有復興的現象. 我想, 當中重要的是 music talk, 一種你在網上找不到的 music talk. 到後來漸漸適應了你的 ‘English way’ 後, 與你第一次真正的 music talk, 你跟我說你第一次提交的 PhD 是 Simon Frith 肥的, 我有點不好意思, 但再一次證明這個人真的是近代流行音樂理論的指標, 讀他的東西總不會錯. 記得那一次我們談起 concept album, 正正那時候我重新聽回 Extreme 的 Three side to every story. 你說最喜歡的是 Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Bands, 你說, ‘Beatles is what we started thinking we have something on our own.’ 到 semister 2, 我把 belu 的音樂給你聴, 我想, 那是大家真正熟絡的開始.

O’Neils 是一間 Irish pub, 靜靜的. 不同於 madferry 震耳欲聾的現場音樂; 也比滿是學生的 adeplh 有個性; 酒保會以正宗的手法給你遞上 Guinness, 還有在上面愛爾蘭的橡葉. 當Oasis 的champagne supernova 響起時, 我們便開始訴說著 Neil Young 的專輯, 1969年的 Neil Young, 及後的 Everybody knows it is nowhere, After the gold rush, Harvest, On the beach… 我真的有幸看過 Neil Young, 日後一定還有機會, 但 2003 年的維港夜, 給我定義了很多東西, 想法. 那是香港政府做得最對的錯事. 還有 church street 的 action records唱片店, 我們便一如以往, 如數家珍般把所有心愛的樂團拿出來討論, Pavement, Stone Roses, The Jam, Guns n’ roses, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan…

音樂中每一刻的 Presence 便好像我們成長的經歷, 見證. 你會因為一首歌, 一張唱片, 一次看現場的 Reverb, 想起一些人, 一些事, 想起自己, 然後看看鏡子, 頭髮短了, 長了一點皺紋, 對自己笑一笑, 回想一些看似愚蠢的情景, 那時候世界上彷彿只有音樂明白你的想法, 然而, 到頭來, 原來只是你根本未明白自己, 縱然愚蠢, 你依然覺得那是可貴, Gain, 是任何人都拿不掉的體會. 可能一個現在四五十歲的大叔, 他們成長期所接觸的音樂資訊, 要依靠自力掙錢去買唱片, 要等一星期才出一冊的 NME 去看有什麼好的, 新的音樂; 有時候只可以坐在收音機旁, 留意著 chat music, 等心愛的歌曲出現, 用錄音機記下來. Myth 便漫漫得以滋生, 它給予流行音樂獨有的歷史觀, 價值觀. 流行音樂也依靠 myth 去發展. 那時不論藝人, 聆聽者, 工業, 無一不需要想像力. 現在, 所有也來得太快, 太多. 根本消化不來, 更不要說想像力了.

這個階段的我很快便要完成, 也要走到下一個階段, 老實說, 我有一點不捨, 但更期待下一個旅程, 你知道嗎? 因為我同樣想像了很多年. 只是現在清晰了, 但感覺更真實.

多謝你一路以來的幫助, 啟發.

很榮幸你刻意記下我所說的這句話:


‘we don’t need to go through the process of imagination now, and imagination is always good.

Friday, 11 November 2011

12 Nov

Put a thought, from what you eat

It'll make a difference, with how we see

Art

everyday life

Life,

it's sake of this life

left leg, right leg, one step, two steps

from here to there, there to nowhere

some is gone, everyone, everywhere

I'm, there.



You are no longer an unknown legend

since, I am going to live my own.

Happy birthday my hero.

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Stephen Malkmus

What a smart guy he is.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

明日的聚會


Dedicate to Pulp, a Taiwanese blogger.

I never believe in much, but I believe in you

音樂, 真的是一件奇妙的東西, 它看似只是一堆音符, 旋律, 影像. 然而漫漫的, 卻成為我們昨日的見證, 此刻的感受, 還有對明日的盼望, 承諾, 你知道嗎? 承諾, 是不簡單的.

With your chrome heart shining, in the sun, long may you run.

已經記不起由那年開始看音速青春這部落, 是五年前吧. 在這裡, 我看到作者的熱情, 是一種你甘心向他認輸, 而你不會感到羞愧的感染力. 原來這世界依然有人, 可以將自己奉獻給喜歡的東西到這程度.

Sooner or later, it all gets real. Walk on

我想, 自己也要加把勁, 用了三年時間儲下的一些金錢, 隻身到英倫, 用一套我認為適合的方式, 向這奇妙的東西致敬, 說一聲: 我來了. 總算是對自己的青春有一個交代.

Shelter me from the powder and the finger, cover me with the thought that pulled the trigge

到作者把文章, 想法建構成一本書. 我真的很感動, 便好像你所喜歡的樂團創作了一張新專輯般, 專輯好壞已是其次, 更重要的, 是那情感的份量, 它已超越了一切可量度的單位.

I'll always be a dreamin' man, I don't have to understand, I know it's alright.

感謝你.

那是我寫給大家一個明日的聚會.

Dreams never end.


Saturday, 1 October 2011

Indie


                                                                                                  
This is the definition of my life
 The Beta band – Dry the rain
 
何為 indie music, 這是一個當日我告訴自己要在這裡找到一點頭緒的課題.

要說 indie 音樂只是基於其唱片商是獨立抑或是主流 (Sony, Warner, EMI, Universal) 這二分法不太恰當. 首先, 一個樂團屬於 (license to) 獨立唱片商但其唱片商可以把它的 distribution right 給予主流唱片商, 因為主流唱片商有更好的資源, 網絡覆蓋去發行唱片. 同一時間, 這麼的二分對一些真的身在主流唱片商 (不論是 direct-label sub-label ) 的樂團我也覺得不公平. 工業架構是了解流行音樂的工具, 但在我看來不是決定流行音樂的原因.

音樂確實性一詞很有用, 但以他來說明何為 indie 也不夠信服. 要說 indie 音樂帶強的音樂確實性便好像說其他類型音樂不確實. 而且音樂確實性一詞一路上也在演變. 由三十年代百老匯的 tin pan alley 唱著別人的歌, 到如Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong 等人把觀眾帶入歌曲的演唱, 及後五十年代 Hank Williams, Woody Guthrie 訴說在地人故事的 country/folk 音樂; Little Richard, BB King 等人把黑人藍調樂給予白人的 Elvis Presley. 我根本不能說他們確實與否. 我只知道他們的re-issue Uncut, Mojo 等雜誌也給五顆星. 無他的, 六十多年的歷史你總不能打爛自己招牌.

Indie 音樂有著一股很特別的原素. 你感受到他們是 indie 音樂, 但卻往往說不出為何. 很奇怪吧? 如果我們聽 metal, 我們可以從他的衣著, 結他的風格, 頭髮的長度等等告訴你他們是 metal. 要是dance, 我們可以從他們所用的樂器, 模擬器, 聆聽者的行為等說明那是 dance 音樂. indie ? 演出者沒有一致, 特定, 統一的衣著 (最好的例子如 Yo la tengo, Pavement… etc), 他們跟你落樓下吃飯的大叔沒有兩樣. 他們所用的樂器很廣泛, 以結他為主, 但也會出現 sampling machine, 模擬器等. 而且, indie 音樂的聆聽者排他性一般不會跟只喜歡特定類型音樂的死忠者那樣強. 例如, 一個 metal 友一定不會喜歡 lady gaga, 但喜歡 indie 音樂的人一般接受能力大一點, 他們不一定喜歡主流音樂, 但對整體流行音樂其他類別不會太過抗拒.

我們可有想過為何音樂會有那麼多類型, 浪潮? 那只是社會, 文化, 媒體的產物. 當時的 punk 音樂如果是 punk 音樂的話便不是 ‘punk' . 類型, 只是後話. Glam, Grunge, Bri-pop, Tri-hop… 多很多也是後來媒體從他們的風格, 歷史文化給予定義的東西. 那樣什麼才是 indie 音樂? 套用符號學大師Ferdinand de Saussure 的說法, 符號與其含意是 arbitrary. Indie 音樂, 就好像一些 arbitrary 的符號, 拒絕被定義為任何類型的一群.

我們看到太多樂團由成功走到被商業因素喪失自我的例子. Indie 音樂是聰明的搖滾客, 他們走的是一條平衡的中線, 不在乎的態度, 用心的是音樂本身的質素, 考驗的是他們音樂的才能, 以及面對音樂工業正確的處理手法.