What's the best way to deliver the Trout Mask Replica talk
>explaining music
"No."
It's a bastardization of blues played by some unfunny white guy and no one should still be listening to it in 2016
"Everything you've known about rock and roll is a lie"
amazingly fun blues rock deconstruction
Listen to the whole thing in one sitting. Try to be loosened up (smoke/drink/do art/whatever works for you)
After a while your mind starts to forget the initial feeling that something doesn't sound right. The instrumentation slowly starts to sound exactly the way it should. It just takes a bit to adjust.
I like this album a lot but it's still jarring when I put it on at times.
Sounds like dudes playing notes at random but it's actually meticulously composed stuff. Pretty catchy if you isolate the instruments and pay attention to each one at a time. Also abstract lyrics bro.
>>63278762
why racist?
>>63278948
It's not meticulously composed, it was sloppily composed and then recorded. After this was done it was meticulously played down to the note.
Explain how this album is good in actual music terms.
>>63278693
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ioVjY5-yds
>>63278948
I;m trying to make a TMR type album and this is what I got so far
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1TEcLtevE2l
>>63279016
You're the one who's sounding pretentious, brah
>>63279529
I'm not being pretentious, I'm being realistic.
Seriously, if I learned this note for note to play it as a song, that wouldn't all of a sudden make it sound good. >>63279247
I have been listening to Safe as Milk a lot lately.
Is it worth exploring the rest of their discography? I've listened to TMR countless times already.
SaM is a masterpiece and Autumn's Child has the most beautiful use of a theremin I've ever heard.
>>63278762
It's not about blues, it's about the state of music at the time, which blues did have tremendous influence over, but it's not really about blues or paryoding it. It's an avant-garde expression of distaste with the industry and standards. Music was going through a revolution already but he was still going to push the boundaries
>>63279602
yes listen to mirror man sessions
>>63278693
Jazz played with rock instruments.
It's the earliest music meme
>>63279078
>>63278693
it's fun music lol
i enjoy it unironically
>>63278693
It's just glorified circus music
>>63279247
Bretty gud rendition. You're on the right track
>>63279247
you should just stop instead of blatantly ripping off TMR
ps it sounds like shit
>>63278948
>meticulously composed
So is this piece of "art"
>>63280626
Masterpiece
>>63280626
Explain why this isn't art first.
>>63280626
>he thinks abstract composition isn't art
You wouldn't happen to be a blue on the political compass, would you?
>>63280680
>>63280711
>>63280733
Art takes skill
>>63280626
This poster perfectly demonstrates why it is futile to even try. A large segment of the population has no interest in anything even vaguely experimental or not immediately gratifying and will reject any effort to expand art. They want to be impressed more than made to think or feel something new. I imagine the follow up to this post is planned to be a picture of an impressive renaissance marble sculpture.
>>63280626
>points to a painting that wasn't meticulously composed
do you really know who Jackson Pollock is?
>>63280769
-Define skill
-Explain why it's important
>>63280769
Where exactly did you dig up that definition of art?
>>63280626
Literally anything can be art. Faggot
>>63280769
Actual retard. Where is this law? Stop trying to pigeonhole art. If one is expressing their emotions and imagination through creativity then it is art. It might not be art that you enjoy, but others might have a deeper understanding of what the artist was trying to convey, or at least think they do, which makes them feel a certain way. Art is, get this, abstract.
>>63280807
>he feels something when he looks at a Jackson Pollock painting
hers a tip, the painting isnt really invoking emotion in you, but rather you are creating it internally in order to justify to yourself that you "get" the painting, which in turn gives you a sense of superiority
>>63280626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GphPmGOHy_Y
>>63280881
Oh gee! Thanks Doctor! You're a child.
"Do you like memes? Then you'll love this!"
Something along those lines
>>63280852
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
>Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts – artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill
>>63280881
>creating it internally in order to justify to yourself that you "get" the painting
so he is invoking the idea of pretending that wasn't there before? You are saying the painting brings in an emotional response? Sounds like art to me.
>>63280881
>It's not invoking emotion in you it's only making you feel a certain way
Oh wow, we got a smartee over here.
>>63280907
>resorts to ad homenim to counter an attack on his superiority complex
You don't. It speaks for itself, like all art. You don't have to like it, but even the most stubborn naysayer is lying if they listen to all of it (without being distracted and doing something else) and claim they weren't affected by it. If it provoked disgust or strong hate then it did something special.
>>63280915
>the author's imaginative or technical skill
Are you dumb? You actually think this proves your point?
>>63280915
you can easily fit "any sound, action or visible thing a human does" into that definition.
>>63280946
>counter an attack
Oh, I guess I'm just no good at this internet forum jousting. When I see a retard acting like a child I call them a child. I'm sorry. See my other response >>63280934
>>63278822
>deconstruction
pretentious
>>63278932
>explaining how to listen to it
pretentious and cringe
>>63278948
>it's *actually* meticulously composed
pretentious af
>>63279602
mirror man
spotlight kid
clear spot
>>63281014
define what exactly makes a musical piece pretentious?
>>63280969
>If it provoked disgust or strong hate then it did something special.
How do you not get how pretentious this sounds? You sound like fucking Tyler Durden dude.
>>63281038
Not sure what relevance that has. It's the explanation that is pretentious, not the music itself. Consult the title of the thread if you are confused.
>>63280929
No i said he's a hack and people act like he is great so they can prove to other hacks that they're part of their club
>>63280934
Nice strawman
>>63280971
It proves it takes skill, which you said it doesnt
>>63281010
>trying to hurt my feelings
you libtards are all the same my god
>>63280881
Oh, the classic "you're just claiming to get it because you want to feel smart." in addition to the obvious absurdity of you claiming to know my thoughts and feelings, your falling into the classic art reactionary hole that seems more informed by cartoons and sitcoms than anything else. Art isn't about "getting" anything, and claiming that the only way someone could like something you don't is if they are pretending in order to seem smart is beyond childish.
It's good.
>>63281044
Was I wrong? Was there a better way I should have worded it so as to not set off your internal alarm? If something affects you deeply in any regard then that is something special. I'm sorry if you'd prefer to live your life unaffected by the things around you, but have fun.
>>63281110
>it takes skill
It takes more skill (raw instrumental dexterity) to play bluegrass than pretty much any other genre of popular music (rock, pop, rap, country, punk, etc). Is bluegrass your favorite genre of popular music?
>>63281110
>No i said he's a hack and people act like he is great so they can prove to other hacks that they're part of their club
Can you please rephrase this sentence without using the word "hack", unless you will bring in a proper reasoning on what exactly about his music points out to a sign of a "hack"?
>Amazingly colourful jazzy guitar tones
>Album has a good sense of humour lyrically
>Nice experimentation in terms of tonality
>Extremely entertaining and well performed vocals
>interesting song structures
>Fresh, vibrant and exciting as a piece of art?
>>63281198
you forgot
>Fast, bulbous
>>63281110
it doesn't "prove" anything, it's a single definition given by wikipedia. Also it includes "imaginative skill" which essentially means that anything can be included, so even if we concede it requires skill it doesn't in anyway exclude Pollock or abstract art like you were implying it does.
People in this thread are too worried about coming off a certain way that you won't say what you mean or actually think? Sure it's not pretentious, but it is phony.
>>63281110
It can take skill yes, and it can not. Both are correct. I never said art doesn't skill. I said some does not, but it is still art.
>strawman
How so?
>Libtard
Sorry, I don't care about arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Again, you're a child. Grow up.
>>63281176
The point of the thread is to describe the album in a way that doesn't sound pretentious.
What you are saying, while not completely wrong, is undoubtedly a cringe-worthy cliche.
But even so you aren't really saying anything at all. Something that makes you feel disgust isn't automatically "special". And your repeated invocation of "something special" as if that actually means something substantive makes me think you don't really have a well thought out opinion in the first place, let alone an ability to express it in a non-pretentious manner.
>>63281139
Oh, the classic "Using big words on a cartoon image board to appear more intelligent". People revering hacks like pollock while shunning artists with real talent is why modern "art" is considered such a joke these days
>>63281214
haha
Though honestly, I can understand why people may dislike it, but nothing about the album has ever offended my ears, I went into the album with an open mind, and tried to like it, as I do with every album, and it just so happens that TMR didn't bore me, and it didn't disappoint me.
>>63281283
Can you admit that it's simply art that you personally don't like and don't think is very good? Surely you can dislike art and still consider it art.
>>63281183
>music
Im talking about a painter
>>63281182
Yes, next question?
>>63281254
you must hate art then if you're willing to consider anything "art"
>>63281265
I'm saying the entire idea of "explaining" something like an album to someone is a waste of your goddamn time anyway. You wanna sound unpretentious? Let the person listen to the album with an open mind, your opinion (or mine) on it is subjective as fuck and of no use to anyone. Talking to someone about it after and only after they've listened to it is the only sensible thing to do.
Look, like it or not we as humans enjoy movies and music and shit because of the way it makes us feel. TMR is weird enough by almost anyone's standards that it will invoke some kind of strong feeling. You may like the feeling or hate it but at the end of the day it made you give enough of a shit to keep posting in this garbage thread.
>>63281283
I don't think there's a single word in that post over 3 or 4 syllables, are you literally a child? There's also no reverence or shunning going on at all, simply defending that something can indeed be considered art. The only people considering art a joke are people like you, who think that prageru video where they literally present a graph of "artistic standards over time" is at all reasonable.
>>63281360
Would it help If I rephrased it, "art can be anything". Rather than anything can be art. I really don't get what you're trying to prove now. Yes, I hate art, you caught me!
>>63281360
You must hate art if you think it's valuable to hamper the full scope of creativity and expression for some sense of purity. If it's not art, what the hell is it?
>>63281403
My cat just took a shit on the floor because it missed the litter tray. I hence forth consider this story art
>>63281360
>Im talking about a painter
Ok, that's even easier. Do you realize that Pollock revolutionized painting by simply putting the canvas on the floor? That inspired numerous people even outside of the visual art realm (Keith Rowe for a musical example). Sounds like revolutionary art to me.
>>63281360
>Yes, next question?
The point is to get you to admit that you take things other than skill level into account when you appreciate art. We don't think that Steve Vai and Joe Satriani are as good as Jimmy Paige even though they are much more technically skilled than Jimmy Paige.
You are making an argument that you couldn't possibly believe, and you disingenuously answered my question in order to avoid getting pinned down on this point.
>>63281320
Can you admit that it's simply not art that you personally like and think is very good? Surely you can like not art and still consider it not art.
>>63278693
The work is so innovative and complex as to be nearly indecipherable. The rhythm section sounds so polyrhythmic that all rhythm is lost. The singing , vaguely interested in music, travels within alien universes. The guitar acts as atonal contracanto. The counterpoint of the ensemble is something halfway between the orchestral chaos of Charles Ives and the audacity of John Cage. The chaotic but rational improvisation is reminiscent of the frenetic geometry of Ornette Coleman, who in turn was influenced by Van Vliet. The heterogeneous meter that Van Vliet produces are to melody what the free poetry of the 1900's are to rhyme. But free-jazz and avant garde music are only alibis, pretexts to freely vent the leader's anarchical compulsions. The album is by all accounts an anthology of chaos in all its musical forms. For as deeply varied as they are from one another, these twenty-eight cuts are many versions of the same scene of devastation. Trout Mask Replica is above all a collage of abstract paintings, each different from the other in color, intensity and contrast, yet they're all homogeneous in their "abstraction".
So literally anything that isn't basic, simple and retarded is pretentious?
This is a fun album. It's entertaining to hear these blues jams. What an incredible assessment of music for the dipshit that hates "pretentiousness".
>>63281444
Now you're just ignoring the discussion altogether. You're actually an idiot.
The only thing I can say is that it's similar to a Pollock painting, though not exactly the same. It just tries to take what makes rock music rock music and stretch it to the point of absurdity, thus parody it in a perverse kind of way.
>>63281444
ah, someone mark down the time it took to devolve into "so is SHIT art then, huh?!?" and add it to the data.
>>63280626
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/moma/moma-abstract-expressionism/v/moma-painting-technique-pollock
how young are you?
>>63281438
self-aggrandizing trash void of any semblence of creative merit
>>63281448
Yes, obviously there's a balance. If you asked one of those musicians to perform one of their songs, they would. If you asked Jackson Pollock to recreate pile of shit #5 he would be stumped
>>63281382
>You wanna sound unpretentious? Let the person listen to the album with an open mind, your opinion (or mine) on it is subjective as fuck and of no use to anyone.
I agree with this and if you had said this in the first place I wouldn't have accused you of being pretentious.
All the correct answers in the thread are some variation of "it's a fun record just listen and see for yourself"
>>63281468
Not sure anybody hates pretentiousness. I like pretentious stuff and I describe stuff pretentiously all the time. I think OP just intended it to be a goofy thought experiment.
>>63281524
Thanks, now i can paint just as well as Jackson Pollock. You just proved my point
>>63281444
Sure, why not? What is it hurting to consider it art?
I would consider it lazily made, disposable art lacking in a great degree of value or merit. But it isn't hurting anybody to say "yeah sure it's art". It's not besmirching art's good name because we are specifying that it is BAD ART.
>>63281579
But you didn't, you were late.
>>63281526
that's a critique of a piece of art, not a refutation of the fact that it is indeed art. Art is allowed to be bad/ not to your taste.
A guy abuses his band for 8 months straight to take the piss out of the music scene of the 60s and it's ok I guess, not really as good as /mu/ hypes it up to be but still a fun listen every now and then
>>63281591
Why even have a word for it if it's so arbitrary and meaningless? This wasn't even my original point, i was just comparing how shit the album was with how shit the painting was
>>63281537
I did, I said don't explain it, let it speak for itself.
>>63281591
>whats it hurting
People with actual talent being shunned by the art community while government dollars incentivise framing a Jesus piss portrait
>>63281648
>why even have a word for it
What the fuck could you possibly mean by this? So stuff you don't like .... doesn't need nouns to describe it?? How the fuck are you going to REFER to it then?
You just went full retard buddy.
>>63281695
Give me an example of when this happened.
>>63281714
Everything is art if someone labels it as such. We have a word for things, it's "things"
>>63281579
I won't believe that you can paint as well as Jackson Pollock until you overtake him as the most influential abstract expressionist that has ever lived. I really doubt you have anything to say in the area he worked in.
>>63281695
>I make things up to support my argument
wat
>>63281695
You're acting like some people "deserve" to get recognition/money while others don't based on some arbitrary notion of "talent." That's a really naive way of looking at economics and cultural values.
>>63281648
Because there is to some degree a notion in human society of art. admitting that it incorporates a huge variety of things doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's the reason genres and sub categories are around- to better define certain aspects of it. No one is saying your cat shit story is a painting, they're just saying that both it and a painting could be considered in a broad sense to be in the same category of human activity.
>>63281760
A "thing" is simply a broader category that could or could not be art. You still haven't made any headway in convincing anybody why YOU, specifically, get to decide what is and isn't art based on your bullshit tastes.
There's a term for art you don't like, and it's "art I don't like".
>>63281864
Tell me who decides then. Pretentious fuckwits? Whoever made it? Retarded
>>63281760
No, because things includes things that people haven't labelled as art.
>>63281811
>>63281746
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitated_Mass
>$10 million thanks tax payers
>>63281895
Why are you obsessed with the idea that somebody has to decide?
How do you know that you aren't a pretentious fuckwit?
>>63281895
>Pretentious fuckwits?
sure. if some pretentious fuckwit recognizes a work as art then it is a piece of art.
>Whoever made it?
Sure, why not. Don't think it's necessary at all though.
>>63281954
Because i like art and this cheapens it
>>63281965
Your chair is now art, congratulations
>>63281922
Please give me the list of artists who were shunned by the artistic community so that this could be labelled as "art"
>>63281895
If you really need to put a specific person or body in charge of judging something to be art or not art, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to let the majority rule rather than to let some anon who hates abstract art to decide. The fact that Pollock's work is generally considered art is obviously a better measure than whether you specifically consider it art or not.
>>63281922
I fail to see where anyone with actual talent was shunned because a rock was placed on a path?
And yes you pay taxes for a shitty government to do dumb things with.
>>63282021
It was designed by someone and created by someone else. A collaborative work of art.
>>63281992
Please re-read the post you responded to and try to fathom why this is not a response to that post.
>>63281648
>An element of human culture is arbitrary
wow unprecedented
>but my personal definitions aren't arbitrary
wow good one
>>63282039
The government spent 10 million dollars on this instead of financing any of the millions of its citizens with actual talent
>>63282021
Wait, really? Surely you recognize that furniture is often considered artwork. This isn't nearly as controversial as a crucifix in pee.
>>63282021
It did take some carpentry skill to create and it is quite symmetrical and practical. Isn't this the kind of art you like? No grey area, no abstract ideas. Just practical and conforms. Oh, I get it. You weren't being sarcastic.
>>63282141
Yeah, screw all the people that enjoyed Levitated Mass, I didn't! Therefore it is not art, by royal decree of the most important and all knowing man on Earth! Three cheers for Artanon!
>>63282154
So yeah, everything is art, it just takes someone to point at it and declare it so.
Also i WAS being sarcastic, moron
It's shit
>>63282154
>Isn't this the kind of art you like? No grey area, no abstract ideas. Just practical and conforms.
>Isn't this the kind of art you like?
>kind of art
>art
I might not enjoy it, but I can easily see how someone else can identify it as art. That was the point.
Every post ITT is now art
>>63282188
It's a rock sitting on concrete. There is no deeper meaning. There is no creative or artistic talent involved. It's basically a parody of itself and people like you aren't even self aware enough to realise
>>63282239
This
>>63282252
>a parody of itself
sounds like an artistic expression. Definitely art,
Goodnight arts majors, It's been fun
>>63282239
This
>>63282252
Is parody not art?
>>63278693
it's a band where everyone is playing there own music and some guy is yelling over it. It's actually fun listening too.
So that means Speeding Bullet 2 Heaven is the Trout Mask Replica of our generation
>>63282286
Everything is art
Everything is parody
Words have no meaning
>>63282277
>Implying I went to college and didn't drop out of high school freshman year
>>63282337
Parodying something is an expression of ones creativity. Sounds like art to me.
>>63282337
It is that simple.
>>63282252
>It's a rock sitting on concrete
Agreed!
>There is no deeper meaning
This is entirely subjective but let's say I agree with you. I like art without deeper meaning! I would take Dumb and Dumber over Andrei Rublev any day. I may have shitty taste in art but that doesn't mean the art I like isn't art.
>There is no creative or artistic talent involved.
This is entirely subjective. I could say this about your favorite artwork to prove to you that it isn't art I guess?
>>63282337
>Words have no meaning
We aren't arguing they have no meaning, we're saying that you don't have access to some special privilege that allows you and only you to decide what meaning they have.
>>63282252
>no deeper meaning
1. why does that matter
2. how do you know in the first place?
>no creative talent involved
completely unverifiable
>>63279247
is this a joke?
>>63280626
There's lots of skill that went into the production of that, but even if it didn't take much skill, what would be the problem? I don't understand your type, and judging something purely on the skill it took to produce it. Like someone already mentioned, if you were into art just for that then you'd have no excuse but to listen to and praise really intricate guitar music over artists that you really enjoy. This is mirrored well in the painting world, or modern art. A lot of it's really impressive, but it invokes no emotion in me at all. The difference between pic related and some renaissance-era sculpture is that there's something really pleasing and intriguing in the former, while the latter has everything about it on its sleeve.
A lot of the very skilled artists you praise are forgotten because what they produce is forgettable. It's almost like pop music sometimes with how repetitive it gets. I like abstract music and art because they give new perspectives on things and make you think about them, which is enjoyable.
Does that help?
I think he gave up.
>>63282667
>The difference between pic related and some renaissance-era sculpture is that there's something really pleasing and intriguing in the former, while the latter has everything about it on its sleeve.
Yeah fuck world history and culture. These wacky shapes and colors give me funny feelings and totally new perspectives on, like "things," bro.
>>63280626
actually, the thumbnail looks a little like some of El Bosco's great paintings
i guess it was JP's intention, but no one got that
>>63282881
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the sculpture isn't great art or better than it. Fuck, there's no need to evaluate them or compare them at all. It's that what they produce is different. Can you really look at tons of works of art in the same style and not get tired of them, or want something challenging that you might have to work to interpret?
But you seem like a lost cause anyway, since you dismiss the effects of art as "funny feelings". Do you just look at something you appreciate and say "this is good because it took a lot of effort"? I really can't tell.
>>63282996
I'm not the guy you were arguing with. I just thought you sounded really pretentious.
>yeah this random jumble of basic shapes and colors really communicates what's it like to be a black child in post colonial Africa. It really broadens my perspective on things unlike those boring Renaissance sculptures
>>63278693
You wouldn't be able to get anyone to listen to this, unless you told them it was a joke or they actually had similar musical understanding as you, assuming like the album yourself.
>>63282996
guernica is really nice I like it a lot
I always thought it was kind of spooky to paint that before Picasso was aware of the concentration camps
>>63283082
You're missing the part where I said they're meant to be appreciated in different ways. I don't even know what you mean about the Africa bit, but if you want a real example of what I mean, look at Guernica above. By presenting a different view on a tragedy in The Spanish Civil War, it makes you take another look at how devastating war is.
It's illustrating a very similar feeling to this painting also depicting an atrocity of war in Spain, but if Guernica was done in a very similar way you wouldn't think much of it. Instead it's in black and white, and the shapes are all scattered and twisted because it conveys the emotion of the scene as it happened.
They're both fantastic paintings, and there's nothing wrong with reusing a style. It just shows things in a new, creative way. I'm really trying not to come off as pretentious here, do you see what I mean now?
>>63283238
Yeah I know Guernica and Goya. Going back to that abstract piece you posted earlier, unless you can articulate what about it that makes it pleasing and intriguing to you and how exactly it gives you new perspectives then your opinions is completely meaningless to me.
If all you say is "this art makes me feel things and think stuff" then what am I supposed to take away from that? You're just writing without communicating anything.
>>63283174
I got my dad into this album. He usually listens to Bob Dylan and your standard blues artists.
Do you think the ghost of Don Van Vliet is proud that he made an album that confounds people almost half a century later?
>>63283445
That's the problem, It's difficult to explain what is pleasing about them because there's not anything to relate it to in the real world. I like it because it's very pleasing to look at. The way the bright colors are juxtaposed with each other and arranged in neat, geometric forms and patterns is very nice. If you want to force some sort of meaning, you could maybe assume that since the largest circle is at the top of the painting, and there are large wide upward angles, it's a painting of a mountain scene with a big, bright sun.
By new perspectives I don't mean it's changing my mind on anything substantial in the real world, I mean it's a new cool way to look at paintings. By saying I like it, I don't mean it has to stand with Guernica or 3rd of May in comparisons. If you like it, that's nice, and if you don't, that's fine too. It mirrors music closely here - people will often have different tastes and there's no way to perfectly relate preference of one over another. That being said, hopefully this helped you see something in the pic.
>>63283540
Why wouldn't he be? If anything, that's one of the greatest accomplishments any musician could have.
>>63282239
Agreed. I know some of the lyrics are creative but that's it. I simply don't like it and that's that.
>>63280881
>I don't get it
>Therefore, no one can/should
>I'm a genius lol
10/10 triggered
>>63278693
You have to deliver the talk fast and bulbous. Fast and bulbous; also a tin tear drop. (Bulbous also tapered)
meme/Trout
Trout Mask Replica is the fucking greatest album ever. Honestly. If you fucking hate this album you need to blow your fucking brains out of the back your head with a shotgun. Hold the trigger with your big toe and grab the barrel with your hands, shoving it right to your forehead before pulling the trigger so your brains splatter wildly on the wall and chair behind you. The police will arrive shortly due to the sounds and smell coming from the room- at first they will be shocked, but then upon examining your computer history they'll find out what shitty opinions you have and toss your body in the river like garbage. No one will miss you.
Stop fucking posting this album if you don't have anything nice to say.
It's like free jazz with electric guitar
This album is trash, really the worst side of experimental.
>>63284285
I have to admit, you're a pretty tough memer.
