Music (pop)-concrete

Rugiati might be good, but someone who makes a special menu just to drink a Coca-Cola together....... I understand that it is still work and perhaps it's my problem, but I cannot conceive of cooking something that is gustatory-connected with Coca-Cola!

Not that I don't like it, quite the opposite, but from there to pairing it with a menu worthy of the name...

micamahler wrote:

I understand that it is still work

The key is right here. Rugiati doesn't have a restaurant, he has a catering business (as far as I know). This means he is someone who wants to earn money, not necessarily by "philosophizing," and to earn money in the world of catering you have to know how to do your job and make things for the masses. The man who invented the Big Mac recipe is probably rich enough for 10 lifetimes.

Cooking is also like musical composition. History gives recognition to those who write 10 wonderful compositions, but the money goes to those who write 200 according to the taste of the era.

thallo wrote:

according to the taste of the era.

Interesting, how would you define the taste of our era today within the field of art music?

by distinguishing art music from non-art music, you are already imposing a dichotomy that is not out of date, in my opinion. If we continue the discussion on the field of the market (because we were talking about composers who earn money), then there is no doubt that the best-paid composers are pop authors

I know, it was biased on purpose.

Now then, take off your hat... I found that post of yours interesting because the taste of the era can also be aesthetics in a broad sense. In short, your last words automatically eliminate art music (in general)... which instead would belong to what taste/aesthetic?

I am asking you this because in the past several masterpieces responded to the taste of the era... or did they not?

I find the theme song of the first video very predictable; it's true that it is for a TV program and these requests may have come from the producers, but in general I think that

if unconventional objects are used to produce music, the music should be unconventional/played unconventionally, or at least not in an expected way.

This is where inverse proportionality comes into play: unconventional objects for conventional music, whereas (for me) the relationship should be directly proportional.

The pipes used in a video—what is the point of making "music" or rather rhythm for a typical disco track when you have at your disposal an object that can be modified in many ways to obtain particular sounds? It is obviously possible to record various sessions of single samples, by touching, rubbing, blowing, using any material, even inert ones,

the possibilities are manifold, and I consider this use to be "wasted".

I understand you Piccinesco, but I partially agree.

The same argument could be made regarding harmony... and yet pop music exists with excellences in that field.

Therefore, potential is one thing, and writing using a part of that potential from popular music is another thing.

I know, there are many examples of truly good music, but precisely if objects not originally intended for music are used, they should at least be used in an unusual way.

Frank wrote:

Now, setting art aside... I found your post interesting because the taste of the era can also be understood in a broad sense as aesthetics. In short, your last words automatically eliminate art music (in general)... which instead would belong to what taste/aesthetic?

I am asking you this because, in the past, several masterpieces responded to the taste of the era... or did they not?

But then, the issue is indeed more complex than it seems... let's say that besides taste, we should also consider consumption practices. But it is very complex to tackle the entire history like this. Today we are used to talking about taste by taking as an example a gigantic percentage of the population that has access to music and its market. If we talk about the taste of the 1700s, we are instead talking about a minimal percentage of the world population. And indeed, the real clash between art music and non-art music occurs in the contemporary era, when even non-art music has access to the general public, and the general public has the possibility of accessing music. It might be cliché, but we are always talking about the birth of the recording industry as a major watershed in music history. Simplifying, I believe this led first to a very strong polarization between pop, "commercial" music and, indeed, art music, hypothetically non-commercial (a distinction that in other eras would have been nonsensical). In reality, today the logic of the music we consider art is identical to that of pop music. There are highly successful composers, niche realities, self-productions, beautiful things and ugly things. And the audience, which is much more heterogeneous, has an egalitarian relationship with the consumption of different genres. In the same shopping basket, you might find a Björk CD and one by Pavarotti.

I'm intruding, so Thallo, how would you rewrite (based on your last post) the following statement?

"History gives recognition to those who write 10 wonderful compositions, but the money goes to those who write 200 according to the taste of the era."

It is not my understanding that Rossini died of hunger, but other illustrious composers did as well