] [Thread Prev
Re: walnut drawing analogy/looping(?)
I'm not sure if I think Fripps use of the feedback pitch shifting would
be called "cliché" at this point... my problem is that he uses it too
much in some of his soundscape work. Due to the fact that he's mostly
using a chromatic shift, it all becomes atonal. I just happen to like
that type of thing better when it's juxtaposed to something with a tonal
center. My personal taste, that's all. There was a time when I was all
about the microtonal thing, but I grew tired of it. I find it's a nice
place to visit, but staying there is too much.
Daniel Soltzberg wrote:
> Maybe we'll twist this one back around to topic yet: I realized after
> I sent that response to Richard's message that he was talking (I
> think) more specifically about avoiding cliche sounds-- that was the
> connection to the whole Fripp signal chain discussion-- rather than
> cliches in playing content.
> It's totally on the philosophical side of things, but the connection
> to looping I see is still the same, and it just has to do with being
> authentic as opposed to automatic-- with the sounds we choose, and
> with what we play.
> I like a lot the idea you've posed of going even further, beyond the
> thing itself to one's experience of the thing-- that actually does a
> good job expressing what I'm trying to say. For example, taking
> someone's sound and how that effects you as a listener, and then
> translating that emotional response into your own sound.
> ghost 7/ Oranje
> on 11/26/02 10:29 AM, Scott Hansen at email@example.com wrote:
> avoiding cliches is good (in art and music).
> dan-your drawing analogy is good, but to counteract your
> advice in drawing:
> i believe the teacher was trying to address your ability
> perception and how you deal w/ abstraction and
> the abstract lines on paper worked in a certain way will
> somehow represent
> the "perceived" world around us. the instructor was just
> getting you to
> look harder: do you see lines around the walnut that define
> the walnut,
> do you see texture/value that give the walnut volume. or in
> do you see how the light/volume hits the different planes
> and make the
> walnut 3-dimensional, etc.
> my beginning drawing teacher told me way back in 1983, and
> he was using
> a chair as the example: "we already have the chair, i don't
> need to see the
> chair anymore, what I want to see is your interpretation of
> the chair" (paraphrase).
> my MFA in drawing/painting 2 cents for the day.
> i have no idea how that ties in w/ signal processing or
> The last part of Richard's post, where he talks
> about avoiding cliche, reminds me of something a
> drawing teacher I once had pointed out:
> Let's say you're drawing a walnut and you want to
> draw the shell. You can start just automatically
> making a bunch of lines that you think will
> represent the texture of the nutshell. But are you
> really looking, and are you really seeing what the
> light on the surface of the shell is doing? Are
> you really being conscious about each mark you
> make on the paper being an attempt to communicate
> your true visual experience of the object you're
> I feel the same logic applies to playing. I
> definitely get into automatic states where I am
> basically playing cliches of my own way of
> expressing-- this happens especially when I'm
> tired or don't really feel like playing. The only
> way I've found to avoid these automatic states is
> to do what amounts to a meditation where all
> thought between you and your instrument (e.g.
> whatever far-out rig you play) is redirected back
> into the instrument and the music itself. It feels
> to me like digging down and down and down in a
> moebius-strip like fashion, or like those celtic
> designs where the animals eat their own tails. I'm
> curious to know how other people experience this
> ghost 7/ Oranje
> on 11/25/02 8:05 PM, Richard Zvonar at
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> At 7:43 PM -0500 11/26/02, Butch wrote:
> >God, is this thread EVER going to die?
> Sorry, Butch.
> This thread . . . . could go in any of
> several directions, but the most
> might be to try to identify how certain
> musical "gestures" entered
> our common language, how and when these
> became part of the technical
> tools we use, and how we can avoid
> sinking into endless and repeating
> sonic cliché.