Hacker News Reader

I love Reich's early tape loops.. they were so ahead of their time. When I first hear them, I was stunned at how modern-sounding parts of them are.

But I completely and utterly disagree with his view that "the purpose of music was for humans to play and sing together as a group activity"

Music, and any other complex human activity (like visual art, or literature) is just way too rich and varied to have any one or definitive purpose.

What might make sense or be the purpose of music for one person might not for another. Someone (like myself) might enjoy making music alone, and who is Reich to presume to tell me that we're doing it wrong?

Of course, he's welcome to make music in groups if he wants. I'm not going to tell him he's doing it wrong either.

Parenthetically, I enjoy making music in groups too, but that's just not the only way I enjoy making music, and don't think I'm missing "the purpose of music" when I'm working alone.

> Music, and any other complex human activity (like visual art, or literature) is just way too rich and varied to have any one or definitive purpose.

This statement looks intelligent and interest but upon reading carefully says absolutely nothing. I don't even get what you are trying to say. Music is a group activity. Mozart played with orchestras, beyonce has scores of musicians to bounce off ideas of, Fela Kuti played with many bands - what does making music alone mean?

Reich's view was at the very least based on an observation, a learned and studied observation as a practioner and scholar.

None of your examples: Mozart, beyonce, Fela Kuti, or Reich proves anything about the purpose of music as a whole, nor about the purpose of music for everyone.

Sure, some musicians clearly make music with others.

But some do not.

And for someone, no matter how learned or studied, even if they're a famous practitioner or a scholar, to dictate what music is for everyone is absurdly arrogant and myopic, to say the least.

If Reich has an argument to support his claim, he should state it, and his supporters should produce that argument, not point to him being a scholar, etc, as supposed evidence that he's right. That's an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

Different people have different goals and different aims. What meaning any particular person finds in an activity varies from person to person, and the wider and richer the activity is, the harder it is to make the case that there's only one right way to do it or that it means only one thing to everyone. Music and other arts are examples of such rich, wide-ranging activities.

> That's an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

True. And I should rightly retract and accept that shortcoming but you've provided me with no real argument other than negating mine. No examples of what you're talking about, not data point to chew on, fuck all.

It still an empty statement in and of itself.

> Different people have different goals and different aims. What meaning any particular person finds in an activity varies from person to person, and the wider and richer the activity is, the harder it is to make the case that there's only one right way to do it or that it means only one thing to everyone. Music and other arts are examples of such rich, wide-ranging activities.

Another completely empty statement. If I had a few days to live, I'd learn nothing from it. T'would be a waste of precious time and energy. Blanket statements, without form, without focus, without context are more meaningless than a false truth. Looks intelligent, but ultimately meaningless.

Bach. Bach ain't jamming (though in a sense he was capable of just that) but it's just as much Bach on the page as it is in the concert hall. It's not the only kind of music, but it's most definitely music, and would still be music even if nobody ever heard it, so long as the patterns and organizations inside it were preserved (I think it's less music if it was viewed as only an abstract pattern of ink marks on paper, but once those marks mean frequencies over time it's turning into music)

> and would still be music even if nobody ever heard it

I vehemently disagree. that's like writing when you don't know how to read. Possible, but meaningless.

I can't read sheet music. The condition to understanding Bach's music on your own is to first understand sheet music. So to make his music you must read and understand his language. Is that music? It's subject to whoever interprets it. If we go nearly extinct what would be a more useful piece of evidence of what music is, Bach's Sheets or Madonna's "LIKE A VIRGIN" MTV special?

Why do you think you can tell other people what is meaningful to them? Your statements are incredibly arrogant. And empty.

You miss the point.

Lil Nas X and The Weeknd are placed in R&B almost exclusively because they are black. In your eyes, sung by a white person in 1986, would be synth pop.

Did Billy Ray Cyrus make Old Town Road suddenly country? Is Montero (call me by your name) rap or a gay dance anthem?

As an X'er, The Weeknd's latest music does sound amazingly to me like a callback to early 80s's new wave synth pop. "Save Your Tears" could've been an OMD single. As such, to me, it's a powerful challenge to existing musical categories.

But to how many people younger than me does this really register?

Younger millennial/Z-adjacent here. I don’t claim to speak for everyone younger than me, but I am continually impressed by the level of genre awareness today’s youngsters have.

Genres like synth/vapor wave are very conscious remixes of periods of time many of us were barely alive during, and their popularity comes in part, I think, from the tenuousness of their connection to the time period from which those genres draw their audiovisual cues. For me, at least, my earliest memories are a dream half-remembered, and music that draws from but does not emulate music from that time period can be a way for my imagination to fill in the blanks.

Interesting, I didn't know that about Reich. Another leftfield hitmaker, Bill Drummond of the KLF, came to a similar conclusion, which prompted him to start a series of collaborative live music projects ("the 17" maybe the most well-known)

This widens my immediate perspective, thanks. One can get caught up in the topic as framed.

And great points: > "Not fitting comfortable into a genre" is so bland a compliment!"

> Steve Reich wrote several pieces of tape music (processed tape recordings) back in the 70s that were a huge hit (in avant circles), but then he went to study in Ghana and decided that this was a mistake. He felt that the purpose of music was for humans to play and sing together as a group activity, and that pre-recorded music did not fulfill this very deep human need.

That is very interesting. (Also, I've only heard Reich's music live, but I've never played along.) In folk music, it is a core belief (long ignored): It's music for folks. Woody Guthrie's songs were written so anyone could play or sing them, as I understand the story. His successors often played more complicated and challenging stuff, much that ordinary people couldn't hope to perform or isn't singalong music. It's hard to imagine sitting around a bar or a living room or out under the stars, singing 'Like a Rolling Stone' together.

'The Desert Music' by Reich is really wonderful, worth giving a listen!