Björk

[strawberry daiquiri]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 10:38 pm
Maybe Bjork is an artist but she is undoubtably not an auteur and hence in my opinion her taste in clothes should not be excused by saying that she is some great creative genius...

Since when does your taste in music have to be representative of your taste in clothes, or taste in general? There are many artists, stereotypically creative or not, who admit to appreciating passionately musical genres completely unlike the one which they create and in this case no-one points the finger and asks why they do not choose that said route for themself. If we are to apply your ''Her taste in clothes should not be excused by saying that she is some great creative genius...'' then we would have to claim from certain designers or style icons their position because their actual personality does not match the creativity of their clothes. Even if her music does not, in your opinion, express the abstract artistry of her unconventional fashions (to put your words politely) she is still entitled to an open canvas as is everybody else. Her work is in a creative field, if anything this buys her some time. There are teachers and doctors and secretaries employed in their respective areas who feel equally inclined to express themselves freely and using their body as their temple. If they wish to attempt heroin chic should they not be allowed because their day job is too blah?

 

[PrinceOfCats]

It was earlier suggested in this thread that Bjork is a great artist and that she is allowed to dress like a great artist. I am pointing out that maybe she is not a great artist...Miles Davis was a great artist (one of the founders of all rock and pop music and their derivatives) and he didn't feel a need to wear animals around his body:

If I you walked down the street wearing what Bjork wears there would be an not inconsiderable number of people who would think you were an utter pr*t.

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 11:52 pm
If I you walked down the street wearing what Bjork wears there would be an not inconsiderable number of people who would think you were an utter pr*t.

But i am an utter pr*t

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Well isn't everyone these days...it's the hip thing to be...but wearing that you'd look like a complete, total and utter prat.

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 11:59 pm
Well isn't everyone these days...it's the hip thing to be...but wearing that you'd look like a complete, total and utter prat.

Now you see, you're assuming and presuming (the pair of preconceptions) that Bjork wanders in and out of her street of igloos wearing that kind of attire. Perhaps I am just an utter pr*t and a slob, but I have clothes in different levels of 'dress' and 'fancy dress'. I heard from a little bird by the name of Cedric and type of robin, that some of these stars and starlets, actually consider their public appearance clothes to be quite fancy and not for an everyday trip to the market. Soooooooo, when Bjork has somewhere nice to be, she breaks out the big guns and shows something personal, special and unlikely to be spotted on the arm of every female on the arm of every male.

 

[Sugo]

um, what's a prat?

 

[gem]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 6:52 pm

I quite like both of them, "Your Highness"

 

[Spacemiu]

First of all to answer your question of why i listen to Avant garde msuic if i am nto a msuician, i listen to ti becuas I like it, becuas it makes me happy, ok? you ahve no palce to judge my taste.

Dount make arogant remarks about me, bjork or otehr people.

 

[plasticine20]

Originally posted by Spacemiu+Dec 28th, 2003 - 6:14 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spacemiu @ Dec 28th, 2003 - 6:14 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-PrinceOfCats@Dec 28th, 2003 - 3:38 pm
Musical tastes are purely objective but in musical and intellectual terms Bjork hasn't got anything on the Be-bop jazzmen or even their less skilled classical counterparts. Emotional power is purely objective but I don't think that many people would say Bjork's singing has more power than the likes of say, Bessie Smith or Billie Holliday. In technical terms Helmut Lang is very accomplished (as is Galliano) Bjork is nobody in technical terms. What's more she's nothing new - twenty years after she dies musicians will not be copying her riffs (virtually every pop musician ever to have lived owes a debt to Davis for his pioneering of Cool and Fusion styles).

In terms of lyrics there aren't many poets I know who would choose Bjork as their favourite musician (whereas I know quite a few poets who admire Dylan and Young).

Maybe Bjork is an artist but she is undoubtably not an auteur and hence in my opinion her taste in clothes should not be excused by saying that she is some great creative genius...

well iam nto a musican by any emans, btu I do apricaet music and Iam friends with many musicians and I know many very acomplished and respected muscians, almost all of these people regarde bjork as VERY inovateve in music. Bjork usses soudns that are totaly diffrent from what is going on in most music. Bjork is really a artist's artist. Technically bjork is evry acomplished ( she has been studying music sens she was soemthing like 7) she has reinvented classical harmoneys and music into soemthing totaly her own.

and poeticly? have you read nay of her lyrics , they are extreamly poetic and expressive

im sorry btu I dount think you knwow hat you are talking about [/b][/quote]
nicely put

 

[ignitioned32]

I haven't read everything yet but I agree with LolitaLuxe.

 

[ignitioned32]

Someones going OfTopic... And totally agree with SpaceMiu! You guys said it all.

Bjork is hard to pin down and trace. Pointing to her pre-solo incarnations as a jazz singer, a Crass Records punk and an international pop star with the Sugarcubes only shows a fraction of her depth. Since her Debut in 1993, she has created a symbiosis between academic music and pop with her hands holding a score by Karlheinz Stockhausen while her feet dance to the faceless sounds of rave culture. Masterfully, her music never flies out into obscurity or stoops to obviousness. Working with producers and remixers such as Nellee Hooper, Howie B., Alec Empire and Plaid, she consistently changes strategies, keeping her sound contemporary, gently nudging at the edges of the mainstream. While she takes these adventurous turns through her career, her versatile voice is unmistakable. She displays wide emotional range from the contained rage of "Army of Me" to the explosive joy of "It's Oh So Quiet" to the ethereal bliss of "All Is Full of Love." All her music is a unique well of superlative perfection.
- Marc K.

And..It was earlier suggested in this thread that Bjork is a great artist and that she is allowed to dress like a great artist. I am pointing out that maybe she is not a great artist...Miles Davis was a great artist (one of the founders of all rock and pop music and their derivatives) and he didn't feel a need to wear animals around his body:

Well probably because that was not his style?

 

[PrinceOfCats]

First of all to answer your question of why i listen to Avant garde msuic if i am nto a msuician, i listen to ti becuas I like it, becuas it makes me happy, ok? you ahve no palce to judge my taste.

Dount make arogant remarks about me, bjork or otehr people.

Calm down, dear - it's only music.

Okay, Avant-Garde. Why did I presume you wouldn't like it?:

a) Not many musicians do
B) I've never met anyone (apart from you) who's not a musician who does
c) It's very hard to get hold of
d) It's impossible to distinguish from random notes being played in a random manner unless you understand the very complex musical theory behind it. I don't understand it and I know a fair amount about music. You admitted yourself that you don't know a huge amount
e) It's very hard to find Avant-Garde. You'd find a few of the more recognized pieces in a local specialist store maybe but most of it you would have to mail-order from record-companies (some of it you would have to buy from specialist-dealers as it is no longer on general release)

Based on that do you not think it is a fair assumption to make that you wouldn't like it?

Technically Bjork is not either very good or revolutionary. This is not my 'arrogant' opinion it is a fact. She uses a simple style that is derived from classic Western styles of composition. It is monophonic. Monotonal. Monorythmic. Uses the standard Western octave. Normally uses standard, non-compound, time signatures. Uses standard Western devices such as mordents and cadences. It does use some dissonance but only to a degree that is part of existing harmonic structures. The music is not at all syncopated and it does not swing (it doesn't have swung rythm). The music is largely pre-composed. The backing uses fairly standard chord progression (i.e. no chromatism or use of the glissando to change). The use of chord structures is totally standard (i.e. she doesn't substitute in other chords such as the mediant &c.) She does not use these standard techniques exceptionally well - J.S. Bach is much better at using these classic styles (there is extensive literature on why Bach is among the best at use of classical devices such as counterpoint). Her singing style is fairly refined - it doesn't come near the raw-ness of some of the blues singers. But her singing does not have exceptional musical finesse (i.e. the vibrato &c. is not completely controlled).

You can like it, obviously, but it is not technically accomplished and like the article above says it's mainstream.

 

[lele]

it is only music!

and a cute singer that wears funky clothes for us to talk about and enjoy or make a little fun of......

prince were you a music major?

 

[PrinceOfCats]

No, all I have is plain old bog-standard grade 5 theory - must be the most common musical qualification in the whole of the UK...

Which means I'm not qualified to ramble about music but then again this is only a light discussion on a fashion forum...it's not like '6th international conventional of the seriously over-qualified musical geniuses'...

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

whoa this conversation has gotten a little crazy

i dont care to defend bjork...and i may not be her biggest fan, but i do respect and enjoy her imagination and style...this doesn't mean i consider her "stylish" or practical...but the fact that I don't think of her as being practical, is the very reason i enjoy her so much...She brings something different to the table...stirs things up a bit... who cares WHY she does it...she DOES it, and thats all that matters...

as for her music, with all due respect my dear Prince, it doesn't need to be "technically developed" for someone to enjoy it...no need for layers...most people don't care if its "syncopated and it does not swing"...or if "The backing uses fairly standard chord progression (i.e. no chromatism or use of the glissando to change)" and "The use of chord structures is totally standard (i.e. she doesn't substitute in other chords such as the mediant &c.)" ...in fact, as in most art forms, sometimes simplicity is the very thing that people find attractive....also what is and isn't "technically developed" is technically developed itself...its based on what came before it...and that isn't fair in my opinion...in all honesty, i think its a rather close minded way of approaching things... sort of like the classic father who despises his son's preference of rock music over the jazz he used to listen to....times change, and music changes or doesn't change with it...either way, to compare music of one period or genre to another makes for weak reasoning...Bjork is by no means Billie Holliday or Bessie smith...just as Billie Holiday and Bessie Smith are by no means Isabella Leonarda or Barbara Strozzi...their music should be appreciated for its own individual style of composition ...

anyway, i could spend days talking about this, but i actually have to other things to do...so i'll just end with this: Bjork's style and music are distinct and unique...anyone that says they aren't is lying to themselves...now, you can either like it or hate it, but it is simply a matter of taste...poor be those that base their taste on what others tell them it should be... and even poorer be those who cant accept that others' tastes may be different from their own

and i mean that in the best way

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Originally posted by CaptainJackSparrow@Dec 29th, 2003 - 11:41 am
poor be those that base their taste on what others tell them it should be... and even poorer be those who cant accept that others' tastes may be different from their own

and i mean that in the best way

just to clarify...

i am by no means saying anyone in this discussion does either of the two...my point is simply that people like different things and sometimes its best to just settle for that, instead of trying to convince them they shouldnt or shouldnt like what they like..ya know?

 

[PrinceOfCats]

In my opinion though every great artist was technically skilled. I know critics who do not consider anything that does not push boundaries as being not-art (that's a bit extreme if you ask me but there you go). Bjork has as much right to dress as she likes as anyone else but she is not some musical genius and hence I don't think she should be defended with the 'Oh, she's an artist she can wear anything' line...

P.S. As I remember Isabella Leonarda was a fairly conventional Ursuline nun who composed various chorals. She seems to be fairly similar to Bjork to me - slightly unconventional yet still essentially mainstream.

 

[purplelucrezia]

While we're on the subject, what do you guys think of Phillip Glass? Despite my usual distain for Post-Modernism and lack of musical knowledge, I actually found myself enjoying his music...

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 29th, 2003 - 11:54 am
In my opinion though every great artist was technically skilled. I know critics who do not consider anything that does not push boundaries as being not-art (that's a bit extreme if you ask me but there you go). Bjork has as much right to dress as she likes as anyone else but she is not some musical genius and hence I don't think she should be defended with the 'Oh, she's an artist she can wear anything' line...

P.S. As I remember Isabella Leonarda was a fairly conventional Ursuline nun who composed various chorals. She seems to be fairly similar to Bjork to me - slightly unconventional yet still essentially mainstream.

i respect your opinion and i agree on several points

1) a GREAT artist is technically skilled....*but an artist who lacks these skills can still be enjoyed IMO

2) "bjork has as much right to dress as she likes as anyone else" and therefore she shouldn't be defended with"she can wear anything because she is an artist"

3) i would agree with your comment about Isabella Leonarda...'slightly unconventional yet still essentially mainstream' ...just like bjork...

EDIT:

 

[lele]

Originally posted by CaptainJackSparrow@Dec 29th, 2003 - 12:19 pm


EDIT:

how cute!!!