It's mid-November and around 8 months since The Ark Work was released. This time is roughly when you see which albums endure and which are passe "buzz" fodder. There are a few of these for this year that come to mind: Ten Love Songs, Summertime '06, Compton, and so on. Albums that when they came out, in one way or another, were heavily discussed; but as time went on, were gradually abandoned in favor of something more "hip" or "new." Albums like these lacked a core component of musical interest: they had appeal in the moment, but nothing timeless.
And then, we have The Ark Work. Ever since its release, there has been passionate discussion about its merits on both sides. The jury is still out: unless you get your opinion from publications, there is no consensus. In my mind, this is proof that the album is every bit as provocative, challenging, and thoughtful as I originally put forward in my review. But perhaps we should first consider what, if anything, makes one piece of art succeed above another? What creates "classic-status?" I'd like to look at an example or two from art music before revisiting The Ark Work and seeing how it stacks up.
1/6
For my classical examples, I have decided to limit myself to the Common Practice era (roughly Bach -> modern day). Though Medieval and Renaissance music are core to the aesthetics in The Ark Work, the music of this time simply isn't very comparable in structure or the society surrounding it. Instead, let's look at sometimes maligned or shirked figures in classical music: Franz Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Both, among academics, are considered to be among the greatest composers of all time. Among much of the public, however, they are known more for making "easy-listening" parlor tunes or music for babies than for creating high art. It's inarguable that the raw emotional content in Beethovian symphonies or Schubertian lied is much more accentuated than the comparably subtle piano concertos of Mozart or string quartets of Haydn, but people often forget that the former two wrote their best music 15-30 years after the latter. Beethoven is as much a contemporary of Haydn/Mozart as Radiohead a contemporary of Zappa.
Comparing these two groups is not fair, then. Instead, we should compare Haydn and Mozart to their actual contemporaries: names like Vanhal, Stamitz, Hoffmeister and so on. You've probably never heard these names in your life; or, if you have, it wasn't a particularly impressive work that you heard. That's because these composers were very focused on formula while Haydn and Mozart were focused on moving forward. Haydn in particular is almost entirely credited with nurturing the symphonic form into what it's been known for up to this day, whereas Mozart was known for (comparably) rather avantgarde tendencies in shifting around form and harmony. Once again: there is no comparison between what is accomplished in Mozart's Clarinet Concerto and the myriad of Clarinet Concerti by Stamitz.
2/6
>1/6
What we see then is that, even in the most tuneworthy of composers, there must be innovation; ever since Beethoven, innovation has been an absolute component of "classic composer status". Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Schoenberg were all innovators the same as Haydn and Mozart. There is not a single Common Practice composer who is fondly and widely remembered solely for their enjoyable melodies, and not for their innovations. With this importance of innovation over conventionality, let us return to Liturgy.
Their first record, Renihilation, was arguably a very conventional record. Certainly in comparison to their following two records, there wasn't any real level of sonic imagination. If we can see the band as evolving through their discography from Black Metal to the more nebulous Experimental Rock, it was more a starting point concerned with establishing an audience rather than a fully realized statement. Aesthethica, following a year later, presented much of the group's core ethos. We effectively see the blueprints that would be used on The Ark Work through the use of minimalist repetition (far more limited than on TAW), medieval chant (in the controversial track "Glass Earth"), and of course some inkling of the Romantic in the harmonies of pieces like "True Will." A heretical person like myself would compare this album to Mozart's 9th Piano Concerto, in that it showed that the group of virtuosos had more going than their technical prowess.
3/6
>>60336593
Hi Triple H, glad you found 4chan
It's interesting to note that The Ark Work could have never happened. When drummer Gregory Fox left the band for several years it effectively put it all in stasis. As Steve Reich understood, you can't have rhythmic, repetitive music without a core pulse. And yet, this hiatus gave frontman Hunter-Hunt-Hendrix time to think. He saw artists like Oneohtrix Point Never and Death Grips skyrocket in popularity, and the Internet at the core of both. He even wrote a review for No Love Deep Web, which for many was a significant turning point in the group. When Fox returned years later, Liturgy was prepared for a revolutionary new approach.
Both Oneohtrix and Death Grips show up on The Ark Work: the former in MIDI instruments (mixed with live instruments), the latter in "Vitriol." But they are just part of the myriad of influences in The Ark Work: as I already mentioned, Medieval, Folk, and Minimalist music all are part of the music. But, as discussed in HHH's "What's in my Bag" segment, so too are Berio, Bulgarian folk, and Honneger (more of the Romantic harmony). In many ways it's a callback to when Frank Zappa told his MTV interviewer in 1984 that he isn't a rock listener, preferring instead folk, blues, and classical music.
4/6
>>60336593
>>60336602
>>60336614
Go to bed boldfaure
You have legit autism
Influences, though, are trivial without consideration of execution of concept; thankfully, the album isn't nearly as sloppy as some critics would claim. The guitars and instruments always are in perfect rhythm with each other, and Hendrix's voice on top adds a very welcome rhythmic interplay as he often contrasts with the instrumental parts. The compositions never outstay their welcome; unlike similar minimalist artists, Liturgy seem to understand the concept of restraint, never indulging in a riff or section for too long without moving on to another song or variation in pattern. The primary concerns of the record regard the mixing (with a weak Bassline) and Hendrix's voice. Ultimately, the former is a nitpick used by people in order to attempt to dismiss the whole record (similar to people complaining about the politics in To Pimp a Butterfly) and the latter is a highly subjective criticism that certainly can't be used to deliver anything other than a biased opinion.
The way the influences are mixed together is notable, in the blending of live instrumentation like brass, bagpipes, and bells with synthesized instruments courtesy of Hendrix's guitar. The timbral palette of the record is very much strident and yet the blaring pipes and ringing bells mix surprisingly well with the deep tone of the guitars as in the opening of Follow II. The ensemble is treated much more like a symphony orchestra than a rock band, as tempo and meter are often abandoned in favor of sustained phrases and cadences. Of course this is only fitting when you consider Hunter's love of Richard Wagner: instead of seeing the orchestra in opera as the sythesis of all art, he is moving the same concept to the rock band. The gesamtkunstwerk (you were waiting for me to say this, I'm sure) thus created in blending folk traditions, classical rigor, and "popular" (in the case of OPN and DG) taste is surprisingly complete.
5/6
>>60336593
>Ten Love Songs
Still pop AOTY imho
And Ark Work is just trash, only few fags and Shills keep pushing it
The ambition of Liturgy across the album is plain to see, but also is the execution of vision for those open-minded enough to consider it. The atmosphere across the record has rarely if ever been accomplished by a rock band, making it absolutely an innovative and unique release. There might not be much tune in the Tenor drones of the horns and voice in tracks like Kel Vaalhal or Father Vorizen, yet there is absolutely an intelligence and creativity. I don't think The Ark Work will create any new forms the way Haydn did, but I do think that, like Trout Mask Replica before it, the album is a unique, powerful statement of originality. I don't think there is much more "classic" than that.
6/6
>>60336660
terrible taste
>>60336629
>When drummer Gregory Fox left the band for several years it effectively put it all in stasis.
a simple proof that he's the only valuable member of liturgy and also the fact that his drumwork on ark work is shit is all you need to know about that album
>>60336706
you forgot to read the next sentence:
>As Steve Reich understood, you can't have rhythmic, repetitive music without a core pulse.
>>60336719
you don't need a drummer for that, if you're any good
>>60336706
pretty much
>>60336750
Steve Reich did: ether a percussion or keyboard part always kept the pulse in his work.
>>60336593
I'm sure the rest of this is well written and everything but you could honestly say the same thing about Lulu or even Exmilitary, that doesn't mean its a classic, it just means that it gets discussed a lot on /mu/ due to novelty value.
>>60336856
There isn't nearly as much to consider with those records, conceptually.
>>60336867
yes there is
which is to say very little
>>60336881
No one can honestly say The Ark Work has very little conceptual depth.
>>60336897
I just did, faggot.
>>60336904
Then you don't understand the references and concepts and/or aren't aware of them.
>>60336670
>terrible taste
>likes Liturdgy
