[Glmoneydawg]

He's a bum.

Well you are certainly entitled to your OPINION my friend.Did somebody pee in your cornflakes this morning?

 

[bigshot]

Nope. I'm cheerful. It's just that I know all about Brian Eno and I think he is a fraud. He is interesting as a raconteur though.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Nope. I'm cheerful. It's just that I know all about Brian Eno and I think he is a fraud. He is interesting as a raconteur though.

Wow....that is trolling bud.....attacking an artist?...really?...very scientific.Send me a list of approved music so that i can conform to your standards.

 

[Redcarmoose]

He's a bum.

He was also commissioned to do the Windows Operating System opening synth wash. I forget which year of Windows, but he did one.

Edit:
Windows 95
http://mentalfloss.com/article/50824/creating-windows-95-startup-sound

 

[Redcarmoose]

No, I think everyone is going to have an opinion on him. Being so different his music and influence is not going to be loved pandemic.

Though I have to say his production seems to find itself attached to many of my favorite albums.

Here he influenced or guided “The Talking Heads”!!!

 

[gregorio]

[1] Ive been lucky enough to avoid those projects.
[2] I understand the business aspects but ultimately musicians are the ones who make music.
[3] You can lock a suit in a studio either greatest instruments and equipment in the world and they couldn’t come up with music

1. I don't see how, assuming you've been involved in professional projects. Maybe you mean just the most extreme examples?
2. Clearly that's not the case. It's maybe the case with some/most jazz and ethnic music but that's about it. Even with say classical music, you've got a composer (and sometimes a conductor), neither of whom are acting as musicians, and then at the another extreme, you've got all the electronic music genres/sub-genres, where there may be no musicians involved at any stage. And, this is hardly new, we've got film music scores with effectively no musicians starting in 1956 and the most famous/iconic theme music in British history (Doctor Who) was created in 1963 with no musicians or even any musical instruments. The vast majority of pop/rock from the late 1960's onwards is somewhere between the extreme cases of jazz and electronic music but is typically much closer to the latter than the former. In classical and jazz the producer IS there to effectively serve the musicians but this is not the case with popular music genres, where the producer is at least as important a musical force as any of the performing musicians, commonly the most important force and sometimes effectively the sole force.
3. Yes but a producer is not just a suit, they have, as you put it, "musicality but no musicianship" and absolutely you can put a producer in a studio with no musicians and they can come up with music, that's effectively what electronic music is and what nearly all popular music largely or partly is.

Yes. I've heard his music. I just don't know exactly what he does.

As a popular music genre producer, he's ultimately in charge of the music. He is responsible for choosing and arranging all the performers takes (which he partly or wholly directed), plus the orchestration, structure and overall sound of each track and the album as a whole. Again, all or most of this would usually be in consultation with or with the approval of the musicians but sometimes not.

He's probably a scener like Warhol was.

I don't know enough about Warhol to say but I would put Eno in a category more similar to say John Cage or Stockhausen, although I'm not comparing Eno's importance/influence with either.

He's a bum.

Maybe you only like acoustic music genres, which is fine, and maybe you hate other genres and/or specifically the music produced by Eno, which is also fine but you can't call him a bum just because you personally don't like his music. I'm not a particular fan of Eno myself, most of his stuff I'm at best ambivalent towards, but he has been both influential and very successful and he's not a bum!

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

1. I don't see how, assuming you've been involved in professional projects. Maybe you mean just the most extreme examples?
2. Clearly that's not the case. It's maybe the case with some/most jazz and ethnic music but that's about it. Even with say classical music, you've got a composer (and sometimes a conductor), neither of whom are acting as musicians, and then at the another extreme, you've got all the electronic music genres/sub-genres, where there may be no musicians involved at any stage. And, this is hardly new, we've got film music scores with effectively no musicians starting in 1956 and the most famous/iconic theme music in British history (Doctor Who) was created in 1963 with no musicians or even any musical instruments. The vast majority of pop/rock from the late 1960's onwards is somewhere between the extreme cases of jazz and electronic music but is typically much closer to the latter than the former. In classical and jazz the producer IS there to effectively serve the musicians but this is not the case with popular music genres, where the producer is at least as important a musical force as any of the performing musicians, commonly the most important force and sometimes effectively the sole force.
3. Yes but a producer is not just a suit, they have, as you put it, "musicality but no musicianship" and absolutely you can put a producer in a studio with no musicians and they can come up with music, that's effectively what electronic music is and what nearly all popular music largely or partly is.



As a popular music genre producer, he's ultimately in charge of the music. He is responsible for choosing and arranging all the performers takes (which he partly or wholly directed), plus the orchestration, structure and overall sound of each track and the album as a whole. Again, all or most of this would usually be in consultation with or with the approval of the musicians but sometimes not.



I don't know enough about Warhol to say but I would put Eno in a category more similar to say John Cage or Stockhausen, although I'm not comparing Eno's importance/influence with either.



Maybe you only like acoustic music genres, which is fine, and maybe you hate other genres and/or specifically the music produced by Eno, which is also fine but you can't call him a bum just because you personally don't like his music. I'm not a particular fan of Eno myself, most of his stuff I'm at best ambivalent towards, but he has been both influential and very successful and he's not a bum!

G

I like your description of Eno being like John Cage or Stockhausen. And not just because the three all dabbled in electronic music, but because they took the conductor out of the orchestra. And not to call Stockhausen’s music random because it’s obviously not, though it can sound like it is, depending on his application of theory and goals at the time the piece was made. I also have to admit even though listening to much of Stockhausen’s stuff I don’t understand it and only enjoy it at a subjective level.

Found sounds do make for the interpreter to create the music from random ambient sounds of the environment. And while I think there was more control in Eno’s creative process, if you’ve ever tried to make music like Eno, you’ll find it’s much harder than it seems at first.

John Cage was a rebellion against the entire classical/modern music establishment. And others found the orchestra to have so many military organizational components and philosophies. The only way out was to boycott modern tuning systems, and test the boundaries of what could be called music. In many ways all three created anti-music. Though even the regime of Serialism finds itself to be more of an embellishment of classical music ideas and structures. In contrast Eno has produced three albums called “Music For Films”. Music For Films volume one is easy to obtain as well as volume three. Volume Two only saw the light of day inside the elaborate Eno Box Set on vinyl from the 1980s. And with so much music made titled as for films, it’s rather surprising almost none of Eno’s music was actually used in film.

 

[Whazzzup]

Toni Visconti but eno was all over this album.

Eno not just ambient.

 

[Whazzzup]

How can one not think lanois with eno

 

[Redcarmoose]

And then we see what seems like a creative turn of events where Eno produces a record and for someone like Harold Budd, it puts him on the map.......at least for me anyway.

 

[Redcarmoose]

 

[bigshot]

Gregorio... As a producer, I have parameters on what I need to deliver. If the network orders an apple, we can't deliver a watermelon. But ultimately, the ones making the creative calls are creative people. I'm someone who can play a few cowboy chords on a guitar. I'm not qualified to tell musicians how to make music. My job is to *facilitate* them making music. That means doing everything non-creative for them, so they can focus on the things that only they can do, and helping them explore the options open to them. I know there are a lot of producers out there who ride herd with an iron fist or noodle and cajole to make changes all over the place... basically trying to be "creative" themselves. By my definition, those are lousy producers. They aren't qualified to do that, and they are riding on the backs of the artists. That is the primary reason why I have very little respect for Brian Eno. He is very interesting and has fun theories on things. But he is pretty much incapable of playing an instrument (and I have a live recording of him in Paris to prove it). He noodles over the top of some of the greatest musicians of our times. I saw an early performance of Roxy Music on Old Grey Whistle Test where in the middle of the song, all of a sudden Eno patched the instruments through his synthesizer and started slathering on weird filters and sounds. At first I was thinking, this is interesting... Then I realized that the aural mush was made out of Robert Fripp's skillful and highly organized guitar playing. When the bridge was over and it went back to the real sound of Fripp's guitar, it was clear that Fripp was responsible for everything that was good in Eno's hash, and Eno's noodling didn't make it better. In fact it muddled it all up. I see Eno as a talentless hack who assumes a persona that makes him look like he knows what he's doing. And he builds his reputation by noodling the work of artists who he really isn't fit to shine their shoes. I think he is a fraud. I'm saying this knowing full well about Eno's career. I have all of his records. I listened to them back in the 80s and liked them. But I was a kid and didn't realize that what I *really* liked was Adrian Belew and Robert Fripp and David Byrne. I admire skill and construction and organized sound. In Eno's records, he isn't the one providing that. He is all style and no substance. Warhol, Jeff Koons, Basquiat, John Cage, Stockhausen, and all the other "artists" to whom the idea is more important than the product fall into the same category for me. They're all influential and successful bums too. It was good back in the late 60s when everyone was on LSD. Now we've grown up.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I have no idea what Eno does exactly to be honest. He appears to be primarily someone who is interesting to chat with.

Gregorio... As a producer, I have parameters on what I need to deliver. If the network orders an apple, we can't deliver a watermelon. But ultimately, the ones making the creative calls are creative people. I'm someone who can play a few cowboy chords on a guitar. I'm not qualified to tell musicians how to make music. My job is to *facilitate* them making music. That means doing everything non-creative for them, so they can focus on the things that only they can do. I know there are a lot of producers out there who ride herd with an iron fist or noodle and cajole to make changes all over the place... basically trying to be "creative" themselves. By my definition, those are lousy producers. They aren't qualified to do that, and they are riding on the backs of the artists. That is the primary reason why I have very little respect for Brian Eno. He is very interesting and has fun theories on things. But he is pretty much incapable of playing an instrument (and I have a live recording of him in Paris to prove it). He noodles over the top of some of the greatest musicians of our times. I saw an early performance of Roxy Music on Old Grey Whistle Test where in the middle of the song, all of a sudden Eno patched the instruments through his synthesizer and started slathering on weird filters and sounds. At first I was thinking, this is interesting... Then I realized that the aural mush was made out of Robert Fripp's skillful and highly organized guitar playing. When the bridge was over and it went back to the real sound of Fripp's guitar, it was clear that Fripp was responsible for everything that was good in Eno's hash, and Eno's noodling didn't make it better. In fact it muddled it all up. I see Eno as a talentless hack who assumes a persona that makes him look like he knows what he's doing. And he builds his reputation by noodling the work of artists who he really isn't fit to shine their shoes. I think he is a fraud. I'm saying this knowing full well about Eno's career. I have all of his records. I listened to them back in the 80s and liked them. But I was a kid and didn't realize that what I *really* liked was Adrian Belew and Robert Fripp and David Byrne. I admire skill and construction and organized sound. In Eno's records, he isn't the one providing that. He is all style and no substance. Warhol, Jeff Koons, Basquiat, John Cage, Stockhausen, and all the other "artists" to whom the idea is more important than the product fall into the same category for me. They're all influential and successful bums too. It was good back in the late 60s when everyone was on LSD. Now we've grown up.

You first quote that you “don’t know what he does”, then a day later say you ”know full well about his career”!

Which is it?

What you must realize about his stage sound filtering is as a group of listeners we become slowly used to new sound effects and they become boring, but at the year of introduction are exciting.

That’s why when the DX7 synth was introduced everyone was using it. The sounds were new. It’s impossible to judge Brian Eno by an old tape of a live concert. At the time putting music into a filter may have been exiting just like Pet Rocks were exciting and everyone was buying!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_DX7

 

[Redcarmoose]

It’s also very troublesome to try and judge an aesthetic at a different place and time. Though some may judge some pieces of art as divine and timeless, it’s impossible to see and feel the message today of a 1950 Norman Rockwell painting on the cover of Look Magazine in 1950. It simply can’t be done, as aesthetics change.

Eno’s genius brought new and vibrant ideas to a world that now uses them everywhere..........you can’t escape the influence. So after years and years of hearing his influences, listening to Eno may appear boring today. But at the time he was very different.

Maybe you could read about what the musicians say who worked with him? And as styles do change, you may simply judge his influences on them as simple, when at the time of recording they were groundbreaking.

Most of his best work was before the computer era.

 

[bigshot]

You first quote that you “don’t know what he does”, then a day later say you ”know full well about his career”!

I've got most of his albums. I've listened to them all. I've read interviews. I'm well aware of the albums he's made and his history. I just don't know what he does in the studio. I guess he kibitzes, drinks tea, deals out enigmatic playing cards and tells the real musicians what he thinks they should be doing.

Have you heard Jerry Harrison's remix of Speaking in Tongues? It's better than the Eno mix.

By the way, look at the lighting, color and composition in that Rockwell painting. They are all drop dead brilliant and show a real master at work. Rockwell was an illustrator, not a fine artist. So his paintings had to read quickly and directly like a billboard. Subtext and layers of meaning don't work in illustration. But if you look at the way your eye moves through that image and the details it lingers on, you'll see that this particular painting is worthy of its fame. Rockwell was also a great teacher. His contribution to the Famous Artists Course was enormous and continues to influence artists and illustrators to this day.

J C Leyendecker painted men in shirts. Earl Oliver Hurst painted people in swimsuits. George Petty painted pretty girls frolicking with Ridgid Tools. They were all masters. You just have to look past the subject matter and see the artistry beneath. Art is about ideas, but it's also about the eloquence of how those ideas are expressed. Warhol was a horrible example for the artists who followed him. I think Eno is a terrible example for musicians to follow.