# Objective Facts About Madonna and her Music



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here is a wonderful example of what we can say objectively about an artist and her music. (I like Madonna and her music. A lot. )

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45112992


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't. Not exactly objective, eh?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

I've never been a fan of her music or style, so can't say much about it from my own experience. But I did read through the article and there is only one objective statement in this article about the music itself that I can see:

_Madonna's studio albums feature songs in 24 different keys - but G major is the most common, with 17 songs employing it. _

The section about how Spotify works, though, is very interesting and certainly shows that someone has attempted to create a software than can objectively evaluate music and use those factors as predictors of popularity.

But really the article is more about her popularity and success than it is about her music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Thomyum2 said:


> But really the article is more about her popularity and success than it is about her music.


Now isn't that what matters in today's world? And being current too. Madonna is so 80s. Beyonce and Taylor Swift are the most important money generating inconsequential music artists today.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I think Madonna is an extremely talented hard working entertainer who has earned every success she as achieved.

That said, her music and her stage act are just not anything I would enjoy. I would probably pay money to avoid crossing the street to attend one of her concerts.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I might be wrong but I think she was the first one that came along with the "bad girl" style in pop music. I like a few of her songs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Here is a wonderful example of what we can say objectively about an artist and her music.





starthrower said:


> I don't. Not exactly objective, eh?





Thomyum2 said:


> there is only one objective statement in this article about the music itself that I can see:


Facts about the popularity of her music _are _objective...If she's had more number 1s in the UK aside from Elvis and The Beatles that is an objective fact that her music is/has been very popular. Facts about an analysis of her music (sad/happy) are also objective.

Or have I the wrong idea about what constitutes "objective" and "facts"?


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

haydnguy said:


> I might be wrong but I think she was the first one that came along with the "bad girl" style in pop music. I like a few of her songs.


Donna Summers recorded the song Bad Girls several years before Material Girl was a thing. Pat Benatar was pretty bad too. But bad girls were in blues and country before that, like Patsy Cline with Walking After Midnight...


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> Facts about the popularity of her music _are _objective...If she's had more number 1s in the UK aside from Elvis and The Beatles that is an objective fact that her music is/has been very popular. Facts about an analysis of her music (sad/happy) are also objective.
> 
> Or have I the wrong idea about what constitutes "objective" and "facts"?


You are correct, but I guess I was responding in the context and continuation of a discussion that Strange Magic and I were having on another thread about the aesthetics of music and my sense that it must be about an evaluation of the objective qualities of a composition. So I was taking the OP to mean that this might be an example of that kind of objective information, which I don't think it is, since it's not so much about the substance of the music itself. But, yes, without that context I can see that my statement wouldn't make the most sense and there is otherwise objective information in the article.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Thomyum2 said:


> You are correct, but I guess I was responding in the context and continuation of a discussion that Strange Magic and I were having on another thread about the aesthetics of music and my sense that it must be about an evaluation of the objective qualities of a composition. So I was taking the OP to mean that this might be an example of that kind of objective information, which I don't think it is, since it's not so much about the substance of the music itself. But, yes, without that context I can see that my statement wouldn't make the most sense and there is otherwise objective information in the article.


My tongue was partially in my cheek when I posted the link to the BBC article. But the article, in a somewhat cartoonish way, shows us, as MacLeod notes, the sorts of things--and only the sorts of things--that can be stated as objective facts about art. Good? Bad? Not so much, without that patented goodness meter at hand.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> My tongue was partially in my cheek when I posted the link to the BBC article. But the article, in a somewhat cartoonish way, shows us, as MacLeod notes, the sorts of things--and only the sorts of things--that can be stated as objective facts about art. Good? Bad? Not so much, without that patented goodness meter at hand.


Partially? Now I'm starting to think you are playing with me a bit here.  So let me try taking a different tack on this. Although I'm not a professional musician, I did spend many years studying music both in performance and composition. And as I'm sure you know, in the process of such, you spend a lot of time learning not just 'about music' but also just 'learning music'. You learn the structure, the harmonies, melodies, rhythms, counterpoints, the different techniques used and how they are all arranged and varied throughout and them assembled into a single piece. You learn the textures and spacing of the chords, the registers or instrumentation of the voices, the dynamics. This is what I mean by the objective qualities of music - there are indeed specific things 'that can be stated as objective facts about art'. And if you're assigned to learn to play a piece of music, you have to learn know and play it all, and well, and not just the parts that you happen to like. And it is indeed a very objective thing, as any good teacher will remind you quite clearly any time you deviate from those objective details that the composer has laid out for you.

My composition teacher used to present us with a piece and he would always ask us 'what is this piece _doing_?' and it's a phrase that's stuck with me to this day. And I think to gain an aesthetic appreciation from a listener's perspective, it's the same - not just hear the sounds and react, but also listen and observe the formal elements of the composition and how they play out to understand it from that perspective too. I think it's very much like poetry, which is built from both the sounds of the language as well as the meanings of the words, so too music communicated in the sounds themselves as well as in the way those sounds are assembled into a whole. Appreciation is not a process of just deciding what is good or bad, it's also about just understanding what it is.

So when you post about the what can be said objectively about Madonna's music, since I don't know it, I'm interested in finding out what people have to say about the music - what are the things that make her music what her music really is? And you're right, it is sort of a cartoonish look at the different aspects, sort of a sampling. But which of those things begin to give us what the music really is? Not the things about what the popularity or ranking or earnings, or who and whether anyone likes it or thinks it's good, but the things that describe the music itself.

Well, I think I'm rambling and repeating myself here (and on a thread about Madonna!!) - better time to stop!


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Being objective, by quoting numbers or facts, doesn't really fit in the context of musical assessment. A computer can do the former, not so easily the latter. That's why Rolling Stone prints both rankings AND reviews.

I'm sure not going to budget my appreciation or modify my assessment of music according to sales rankings. That Madonna outsold an artist from another time may be a fact. It's also a fact she arrived just as digital media and something called MTV became available. Elvis and the Mop Tops were distributed on monaural vinyl 45s at 99 cents a pop and faced threats of censorship every time they performed on TV...

Madonna came 20 years after the Beatles, yet the cost of buying music had not inflated like REAL material assets. So Madonna's numbers not only reflect the huge growth in media exposure available, with far less threat of censorship, but also the incredible purchasing power that Madonna's consumers had compared to 20 years earlier. This inflation-defying purchasing power in electronics and media is another reason fewer people are paying for live music anymore.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Thomyum2: "So when you post about the what can be said objectively about Madonna's music, since I don't know it, I'm interested in finding out what people have to say about the music - what are the things that make her music what her music really is? And you're right, it is sort of a cartoonish look at the different aspects, sort of a sampling. But which of those things begin to give us what the music really is? Not the things about what the popularity or ranking or earnings, or who and whether anyone likes it or thinks it's good, but the things that describe the music itself."


.

Exactly! And even the things that describe the music itself tell us nothing about what the music really is--how we will or how we "should" react to it. My whole point. We are making progress.

Edit: Let me further break down the "objective" argument to A) how closely/accurately do the performers of the work adhere to the score or other indication of the composer's intent?; B) how will the correctly performed work conform to the standards/tenets of that genre? Most important, C) how will it interact with the brain of any given listener? If we (you, me) like it, will it be "good"?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> .
> 
> Exactly! And even the things that describe the music itself tell us nothing about what the music really is--how we will or how we "should" react to it. My whole point. We are making progress.


Well, I think I do see what you mean, but still get the sense that you don't see what I mean. Because how we react to music is an ephemeral thing, it changes depending on one's mood and what's going on around you and many other factors. Just like a good wine can taste one way paired with the right food but differently with the wrong food. But aesthetics is a more stable thing because it is rooted in a tradition that reaches across time and across individuals. The greatness of a Beethoven symphony endures even as one's taste for hearing it may come and go. Just as the greatness of the Parthenon remains even as it has become a casualty of the wars. No?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Thomyum2 said:


> Well, I think I do see what you mean, but still get the sense that you don't see what I mean. Because how we react to music is an ephemeral thing, it changes depending on one's mood and what's going on around you and many other factors. Just like a good wine can taste one way paired with the right food but differently with the wrong food. But aesthetics is a more stable thing because it is rooted in a tradition that reaches across time and across individuals. The greatness of a Beethoven symphony endures even as one's taste for hearing it may come and go. Just as the greatness of the Parthenon remains even as it has become a casualty of the wars. No?


I think I understand your position but I believe it suffers from the flaw of the popularity contest, though elevated to consideration of the opinions/votes of The Best and The Brightest. I call this the Oppenheimer argument, as that brilliant aesthete counseled his younger brother that the best art was that esteemed by the best people. The tautology of this argument is evident from considering that we can always tell the best people by considering that they can be identified as loving the best art. No, for me, aesthetics is always and only an individual exercise and can only be externalized in the form of a popularity vote. So many TC posters hate my analogy to ice cream, but is there "objectively" a Best Ice Cream?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've enjoyed quite a few of her songs, but haven't listened to a full album ever. I like Beautiful Stranger, Material World, Ray of Light and Forzen.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My favorite: pure, perfect pop.....


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Thomyum2 said:


> Well, I think I do see what you mean, but still get the sense that you don't see what I mean. Because *how we react to music is an ephemeral thing*, it changes depending on one's mood and what's going on around you and many other factors. Just like a good wine can taste one way paired with the right food but differently with the wrong food. But aesthetics is a more stable thing because it is rooted in a tradition that reaches across time and across individuals. The greatness of a Beethoven symphony endures even as one's taste for hearing it may come and go. Just as the greatness of the Parthenon remains even as it has become a casualty of the wars. No?


How we react - varying, but not ephemeral (unless we're listeing briefly to something that we never hear again.) My reactions to the music I'm most familiar with are layered. I can't easily recall what my reactions were when I first heard Like A Virgin, but every time I've listened to it since, my response has been coloured by that first reaction and by subsequet listenings. However, it still retains its essential appeal.

As for comparing her with Beethoven, this is a frutiless exercise. They wrote music of completely different types under completely different circumstances, for completely different purposes. Whatever criteria one uses to judge the one would not really be much use for judging the other.



philoctetes said:


> Being objective, by quoting numbers or facts, doesn't really fit in the context of musical assessment. A computer can do the former, not so easily the latter. That's why Rolling Stone prints both rankings AND reviews.
> 
> I'm sure not going to budget my appreciation or modify my assessment of music according to sales rankings. That Madonna outsold an artist from another time may be a fact. It's also a fact she arrived just as digital media and something called MTV became available. Elvis and the Mop Tops were distributed on monaural vinyl 45s at 99 cents a pop and faced threats of censorship every time they performed on TV...
> 
> Madonna came 20 years after the Beatles, yet the cost of buying music had not inflated like REAL material assets. So Madonna's numbers not only reflect the huge growth in media exposure available, with far less threat of censorship, but also the incredible purchasing power that Madonna's consumers had compared to 20 years earlier. This inflation-defying purchasing power in electronics and media is another reason fewer people are paying for live music anymore.


This is all true, and would suggest that the commercial achievements of _The Beatles _are much greater. That might also imply that as it was much harder to make an impact in the 60s, the quality of the music must be greater. However, the problem with that is that as there was no-one else around doing what they were doing, The Beatles had an easier time - they weren't jostling with dozens and dozens of well-established artists playing rock, pop, disco etc. I'm not sure what a comparison between them tells us about their music, but it is interesting in what it tells us about the context for 1964 and 1984.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

philoctetes said:


> Being objective, by quoting numbers or facts, doesn't really fit in the context of musical assessment. A computer can do the former, not so easily the latter. That's why Rolling Stone prints both rankings AND reviews.
> 
> I'm sure not going to budget my appreciation or modify my assessment of music according to sales rankings. That Madonna outsold an artist from another time may be a fact. It's also a fact she arrived just as digital media and something called MTV became available. Elvis and the Mop Tops were distributed on monaural vinyl 45s at 99 cents a pop and faced threats of censorship every time they performed on TV...
> 
> Madonna came 20 years after the Beatles, yet the cost of buying music had not inflated like REAL material assets. So Madonna's numbers not only reflect the huge growth in media exposure available, with far less threat of censorship, but also the incredible purchasing power that Madonna's consumers had compared to 20 years earlier. This inflation-defying purchasing power in electronics and media is another reason fewer people are paying for live music anymore.


The point of my posting the link and of discussing the objective, quantifiable facts about a composer and especially a piece of art, is to illustrate that neither truly objective "facts" nor our own reaction to the art can tell us whether the art is "good" or "bad". We can know only that we like or dislike it (or remain unmoved). It is only one's individual aesthetic that is in play. As I've noted so (too) often, the pattern is to experience something, then to like or dislike it, then to cast about _ex post facto_ for the reasons we like/dislike it so it can be fitted to some larger scheme of "aesthetics" by way of justification: "I had to like it; it was good!"


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> I think I understand your position but I believe it suffers from the flaw of the popularity contest, though elevated to consideration of the opinions/votes of The Best and The Brightest. I call this the Oppenheimer argument, as that brilliant aesthete counseled his younger brother that the best art was that esteemed by the best people. The tautology of this argument is evident from considering that we can always tell the best people by considering that they can be identified as loving the best art. No, for me, aesthetics is always and only an individual exercise and can only be externalized in the form of a popularity vote. So many TC posters hate my analogy to ice cream, but is there "objectively" a Best Ice Cream?





Strange Magic said:


> The point of my posting the link and of discussing the objective, quantifiable facts about a composer and especially a piece of art, is to illustrate that neither truly objective "facts" nor our own reaction to the art can tell us whether the art is "good" or "bad". We can know only that we like or dislike it (or remain unmoved). It is only one's individual aesthetic that is in play. As I've noted so (too) often, the pattern is to experience something, then to like or dislike it, then to cast about _ex post facto_ for the reasons we like/dislike it so it can be fitted to some larger scheme of "aesthetics" by way of justification: "I had to like it; it was good!"


I think maybe I'm beginning to see the disconnect here, and I do agree completely with where you are on the popularity aspect - making a determination of what is good or better or best is an individual thing or otherwise depends on a poll or consensus, whether you are speaking of a pure subjective opinion of the work or whether you are talking about its aesthetics. But I'm really not interested in that - I find polls and popularity statistics and attempts to rank art to be something of a curiosity - of some interest in the way of providing insight into how certain groups of individuals think and feel about things, but without much value beyond that. I'm much more interested in the _process_ of aesthetics, rather than the ultimate outcome of the judgment.

No, all I mean, and perhaps I'm not using the right words (I am even more amateur at philosophy that I am at music), is that there are subjective and an objective aspects of a person's experience of art, and the aesthetics are based on objective qualities (even as the 'rank' or 'greatness' anyone might assign to a work based on that aesthetic assessment is still an individual and subjective matter). So if you tell me you like or dislike something, because is makes you happy or think it express sadness or makes you laugh, it's of interest in that I know something about your preference and your reaction but very little about the art itself. I may or may not have the same reaction, but there isn't anything really to agree or disagree with. Whereas if you tell me you find something aesthetically good or pleasing - it's still an individual choice you've made, but I understand that choice to be based on the objective features of the work - it's order, balance, harmony, composition, or whatever qualities it may be, and here we have the material to discuss actual features in the art and consider how well or why they work or don't work toward making the piece successful for us, and out of that discussion we can both return to that work of art and now be aware of new things that we might not have noticed before. So in your post #17, for example, I hear subjective ('my favorite') and objective ('pure, perfect pop') statements both - the first is your taste, which I may or may not share but which can't be disputed because it is purely yours; and the second is about the music, to which I'd respond by challenging you to tell me what is that based on - why is it pure and perfect? What are you hearing in the music and where, that leads you to this conclusion? What can you share with me about what you find in this music that will let me appreciate its qualities and try for myself to enter your world of experience with it? And we may agree or disagree after that, which is fine and up to us each as individuals, but at least we'd have exchanged something that's hopefully of value to both of us.

Even with ice cream, I think that there can be an aesthetic, if you're attuned to it at that level, which would be to say not just that you like chocolate ice cream, but that you like a particular recipe or kind because the combination of flavors and textures and sweetness work together well. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, and I do realize the lines are blurred a bit here because there are subjective elements in both though. But for me, experiencing art always has these two distinct levels and I experience them as separate and independent things.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

...............


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It's amazing that Madonna is now 60 (on Aug. 16) when so many of us have remained the same age for years. In my case, it started after accidentally reading Oscar Wilde's novel _The Picture of Dorian Gray._ So there's never any need to be injected with monkey glands.

I am more inclined to read her sales statistics as proof of her popularity since I haven't been drawn to her that much for her singing and dancing artistry, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. The music, of course, has quality within the field of pop, but I think it was originally created more for popularity, as she was the original "Material Girl" and not the student of Nadia Boulanger.

Nevertheless, there are various levels of quality and art within every genre of music and something that can suggest some type of an objective standard as well, or quality in everything is made to sound so bloody arbitrary - and I absolutely reject that or everyone would be selling the same number of records and liking it to the same level of depth or lack of depth.

The world seems to have become bloated with "subjectivitis" as if all opinions have the same value in the marketplace when of course they do not, even if one's own subjective opinion still has great value to oneself... I simply do not value the opinion the same of someone who has dedicated his or her life to a certain type of music with the novice or beginner who just stepped off the boat, though both are entitled to their opinions. I view every situation as having an objective and subjective side, period.

The trick is not being drawn down the rabbit hole of defending either side and driving oneself crazy. Maybe that's why every coin has two sides, so does a slice of salami, and everything in life seems to have an inner and outer perspective, with the inner being subjective and the outer objective.

Now where did I put Wilde's book?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Larkenfield: "Nevertheless, there are various levels of quality and art within every genre of music and something that can suggest some type of an objective standard as well, or quality in everything is made to sound so bloody arbitrary - and I absolutely reject that or everyone would be selling the same number of records and liking it to the same level of depth or lack of depth."


The reason that everyone doesn't and never did sell the same number of records is simply because more people liked X than liked Y. Just a statistical thing. Vanilla outsells pistachio. Is it better, or do more people prefer it? If you say it's better because more people prefer it, or more people prefer it because it is better, you're immediately down the rabbit-hole....


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Thomyum2: " But I'm really not interested in that - I find polls and popularity statistics and attempts to rank art to be something of a curiosity - of some interest in the way of providing insight into how certain groups of individuals think and feel about things, but without much value beyond that. I'm much more interested in the process of aesthetics, rather than the ultimate outcome of the judgment."


I'm interested in the process also. Why don't you take a relatively easy or simple example of a piece of music or art that you really like and attempt to explain to your own satisfaction why you like it. I've done this, for instance, with my superfavorite rock songs and have come up with certain properties that they share, in whole or part, that trigger a positive response in me. But these properties invariably evoke highly individual issues of neurology/psychology that I might share with others, but they do not suggest some sort of "aesthetic" hypertruth or truths that would compel me in any sense to regard the music as "good" or "bad" in the sense that these terms are used so freely here on TC.

This introspection also works for our CM favorites as well. I could spend many hours painfully typing out why I love, say, Prokofiev's 3rd piano concerto--I know why I like it--but life is really too short and too busy for me to do so here on TC. The thought exhausts me. But maybe you will someday be moved to do this. I think if you do, you will begin to realize just how subjective and individual our experiences of art are.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Thomyum2: "So in your post #17, for example, I hear subjective ('my favorite') and objective ('pure, perfect pop') statements both - the first is your taste, which I may or may not share but which can't be disputed because it is purely yours; and the second is about the music, to which I'd respond by challenging you to tell me what is that based on - why is it pure and perfect?"


Here you will have to indulge me. Being human, and slovenly, I often lapse into the lingo I hear and read all about me--about pieces of music/art being good, bad, perfect. I should be consistent and speak of things in terms exclusively of "I like, I enjoy, my favorite" etc., rather than "pure, perfect pop". FWIW Madonna's _Dress You Up_ falls into a special category of euphoria-inducing pop that also includes Phil Collins/Philip Bailey tunes _I Missed Again_ and _Easy Lover_, and Steve Winwood _Freedom Overspill_, among others.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> I'm interested in the process also. Why don't you take a relatively easy or simple example of a piece of music or art that you really like and attempt to explain to your own satisfaction why you like it. I've done this, for instance, with my superfavorite rock songs and have come up with certain properties that they share, in whole or part, that trigger a positive response in me. But these properties invariably evoke highly individual issues of neurology/psychology that I might share with others, but they do not suggest some sort of "aesthetic" hypertruth or truths that would compel me in any sense to regard the music as "good" or "bad" in the sense that these terms are used so freely here on TC.
> 
> This introspection also works for our CM favorites as well. I could spend many hours painfully typing out why I love, say, Prokofiev's 3rd piano concerto--I know why I like it--but life is really too short and too busy for me to do so here on TC. The thought exhausts me. But maybe you will someday be moved to do this. I think if you do, you will begin to realize just how subjective and individual our experiences of art are.


To be honest, the thought exhausts me too in light of my own shortages of time. And not to belabor the point, but perhaps it will suffice to say that I sometimes listen to music because I like it, and sometimes because I want to understand it. And understanding can bring enjoyment and yes that is subjective. But I also value the understanding, if and when it comes, for its own sake even in the absence of liking it. But yes, perhaps that is an individual issue of psychology too.



Strange Magic said:


> Here you will have to indulge me. Being human, and slovenly, I often lapse into the lingo I hear and read all about me--about pieces of music/art being good, bad, perfect. I should be consistent and speak of things in terms exclusively of "I like, I enjoy, my favorite" etc., rather than "pure, perfect pop". FWIW Madonna's _Dress You Up_ falls into a special category of euphoria-inducing pop that also includes Phil Collins/Philip Bailey tunes _I Missed Again_ and _Easy Lover_, and Steve Winwood _Freedom Overspill_, among others.


Indulgence granted! I knew what you meant and spent many a euphoric late hour dancing to these in the 80s.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm a rocker by nature but I have to admire Madonna's pop output. She's created some of the best pop music of the last 40 years. This is a truly awesome bit of catchy pop. Still gets me singing along now......


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Can someone bring Milton Babbit into this discussion please


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I thought I was getting old when I found 50 year old women attractive but I must be very very old to fancy a 60 year old woman.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Norman Gunston said:


> Can someone bring Milton Babbit into this discussion please


OK: It would be interesting to compare the stats of Madonna and Milton side by side. A Ciccone-Babbitt square-off. No holds barred.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I like her producers like Shep more than anything from herself.


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

She ain't no Joni Mitchell


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Norman Gunston said:


> She ain't no Joni Mitchell


You're right. She's more like......Madonna. There's nobody like Joni Mitchell, not even Joan Sutherland. Further profundities available @ $5 each.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> You're right. She's more like......Madonna. There's nobody like Joni Mitchell, not even Joan Sutherland. Further profundities available @ $5 each.


Appreciate the offer, but I already belong to the profundity-of-the-month club. That's only $3 per with an annual subscription.


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> You're right. She's more like......Madonna. There's nobody like Joni Mitchell, not even Joan Sutherland. Further profundities available @ $5 each.


What about June Bronhill?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Norman Gunston said:


> What about June Bronhill?


What about her indeed? Start a thread.


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> What about her indeed? Start a thread.


 Ok


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

There are three, but, as Kaa says, "All One" 

P.S.: You didn't start a thread, did you. Just horned in on this one.


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Can I add Milton Babbitt?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Norman Gunston said:


> Can someone bring Milton Babbit into this discussion please


Gladly to celebrate wanton thread drift... Milton's serial blips, bloops and blops can seem a bit dated now. If only some of these academically-inspired, electronic music composers had scientifically studied the influence of sound on hemispheric brain specialization rather than focusing so much on discovering new timbres, sonorities and sound combinations for its own sake in what seemed like wanton self-indulgence at the expense of the Universities that supported them. But I will grant him that some of the sonorities and high frequency sounds he came up with can stimulate both hemispheres and penetrate right to the center of the brain (especially when heard through an excellent headset). I enjoy Babbitt's _Philomel_ that has the influence of the 2nd Viennese School written all over it with its unpredictability and yet without any strident dissonances. The voice makes it sound more human and the work is full of all kinds of layers and subtle sound frequencies that took great skill to put together. If Babbitt had lived at least one hundred years more his sales figures might have matched Madonna's.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Gladly to celebrate thread drift: For those who have a sense of humor, some listeners have celebrated Milton Babbit as the Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf of the synthesizer during the era of spacesuits and powdered Tang for breakfast. He seems a bit dated now.


Where does that leave Morton Subotnick?


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Where does that leave Morton Subotnick?





Larkenfield said:


> Gladly to celebrate wanton thread drift... For those who have a sense of humor, some listeners have celebrated Milton as the Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf of the synthesizer during the era of outer space and powdered Tang. His serial blips, bloops and blops can seem a bit dated now. If only some of these academic electronic music composers had scientifically studied the influence of sound on the functioning of hemispheric brain specialization. They blew it while focusing so much on discovering new timbres, sonorities and sound combinations for its own sake as what seemed like pure self-indulgence on their part at the expense of the Universities that were supporting them.


My thoughts exactly. All we need now is Brittany Spears and we have really got something happening


----------



## Ivan Smith (Jun 11, 2018)

That's sounds a lot like history to me

Milton Babbitt vs. Britney Spears


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Thread Drift Playhouse... oscillating, hissy, buzzy, aggressive electronics! Madonna has left the building.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Thread Drift Playhouse... oscillating, hissy, buzzy, aggressive electronics! Madonna has left the building.


Louis and Bebe Barron are sending the id monster after you…


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

I remember when the film version of 'evita' came out the headline ovine Times review was 'Desperately seeking earplugs'


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2018)

Norman Gunston said:


> She ain't no Joni Mitchell


You're right there. JM never did anything as great as _Ray of Light_!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

He who laughs last, laughs best.....:lol:


----------

