] [Thread Prev
Re: simulations, etc, long and winding ramble, part #1
> >I had a drum machine for about three years before I had regular access
> >drum kit- in six months, I was twice as good at the real thing than on
> >machine (except for the timing thing- oops!).
> Well, "except for the timing thing" is kind of a crucial bit.
> After several years of drumming, I certainly couldn't come close
> to my drum machines ability to play 32-nd note fills at 144 bpm
> in a 13/8 song.
I'm not sure I could understand 32nd note fills at 144bpm in 13/8. : )
> Anyway, I'm not really sure how this connects to the complaint
> about MIDI not being expressive enough--I'm not sure
> if you're being pro- or con-.
I not really pro or anti midi. I just know that (with the notable
controller data) I have had little or no success in getting to work for me.
Lots of other people do, and I even like some of it. I just can't. I
cello, which sounds like a harp seal pup being beaten when I play it, and
damn well I love a well played cello.
> Where to start? It's about _the music_.
You know, it's funny, but everyone says this, but no one seems to believe
It's like when people answer a band flier you have up.
(this conversation, to the best of my ability to reconstruct it, is real)
'So, what did you like about the flier?' you ask.
'I just thought, you know, I uh, felt like we could, you know, have a
connection... And I really like Neil Young a lot.'
'Know any of the other bands? Slint? Sonic Youth? Ornette Coleman?'
'So, what kind of stuff are you into?'
'Oh, all kinds.'
You finally find out that all kinds of music means Bon Jovi (the band) and
Bon Jovi (the solo artist). For those of you who never experienced this,
you. We play all kinds of music here: Country, and western.
But you are right. It IS about the music. It's just who's version of the
that is the question. It's a good one, I haven't got a clue.
> Is music particularly distinctive from other forms
> of artistic endeavor? Probably not; or rather all
> of the non-verbal arts (music & visual art) are
> probably radically distinguishable from the others.
> Interestingly, though, music is still very different from
> visual art. For example, both music and books are
> basically linear; most visual art is not. Additionally,
> music is an "enforced" linear; the listener is
> forced to proceed apace, unlike books (although if
> you listen to spoken literature, this aspect of the
> experience will change).
Ever listen to one of your favorite books on audiotape? I used to sneer at
them, until I was trapped in a car and forced to listen to one. The
I read very, very, very fast. I can finish a 350 page Robert Parker novel
about three hours. (Sartre take a while longer, but what can you do.
reading Nausea for about three years....) It reminds me of that guy in
Gibson, pretty good book) who has attention deficit disorder, but because
some drug trails he took as a kid, he is able to become pathological
very limited types of information for long periods of time.
So, I forget the book, 'Sexus', maybe, but hearing it aloud opens up a
nuance that I ordinarily miss in my usual literary sack and pillage.
The whole linear/non-linear experience thing has had me thinking about
other than guitar and female companionship lately. (I must be getting old
slowing down.) I'm not really sure what I'm thinking, but, when I do,
But the veiwing of a painting is not entirely non-linear: the eye is, more
likely than not, guided purposly across the painting, to very specific
Also, one can only view so much detail at a time- examining a painting up
is a very different experience that veiwing from a few steps back. Step
further and the experience is changed again.
You have to select what you are going to experience, while filtering out
Likewise, music is not entirely linear either. There is melody, counter
rhythm, bass lines, lyrical content (on those rare occasions that there is
are all experienced simultaineously: I have a hard time experiencing more
few of these things at once, but you can toggle between verying locusses