] [Thread Prev
Re: That first note (or loop) . . .
Some interesting views posted:
On May 1, 2005, at 17:12, David Kirkdorffer wrote:
> Per, et al. -
> I'm not sure your 100% serious with your "1st note" thesis, but if
> you are I disagree.
> The first note is without any context, as it is the first. Without
> context, you are free to go anywhere. You could say the first note
> is a point in space, and it is without a direction.
From my point of view, the way I experience music, that is not the
case. I have a strong feeling that the second, third, fourth etc note
already lies embedded within the first note. I can even go a bit
further and say that even the first note already lives within the
performers' mental and emotional approach before he starts playing.
This is a very subjective thing and I'm not sure that it's the truth,
but that's at least how I feel about music and the world in general.
Notes and events in life are connected not only by the order they
usually appear to take place in time. Human will and emotion do also
play a big part. Some may call that "a mystical point of view" but to
me it's very evident in music. No need to talk about "magic", maybe
just some extremely subtle body language that affects us
unconsciously? Or is it just a mental trick like dreams we have at
night that physically happen in a few seconds brain activity, but we
remember them as scenarios of several hours. Sometimes I think that
the last note also has a strong impact on the first note. That would
only be possible if you experience the music in a dreamlike state (?).
> As a general habit, when I do a looping show, the first piece I do
> is a minimal thing and without any looping. It's my way of getting
> my bearings, clearing the air, and letting the audience know I
> won't be playing "Louie-Louie.
Some smart showmanship! ;-)
On May 1, 2005, at 18:57, Kris Hartung wrote:
> On occasion, I hear artists claim that they are doing their own thing
> without any influences from others, or when someone asks who
> them, they shrug their shoulders and claim ignorance. I find this
> laughable, if not arrogant and pretentious, as if they think they can
> compose in a vacuum outside the influence of human society...
I do partly agree, but in a certain sense I believe that you really
can compose - and listen to music - "in a vacuum". Music is different
combinations of vibrations and time. They are exactly the same
whoever is listening or performing. I have been thinking a little
about this because I personally became actively interested in music
at a rather mature age (fourteen or fifteen years old). As a child I
practically never heard music except for on some very rare occasions.
I heard something from a radio when I was five, that I have later
researched as being "Pata Pata" with Miriam Makeba and I also got at
a piano now and then when visiting my grand parents. But what I
remember from that time is not "melodies" or "notes" but rather
geometrical forms and colors. Those forms and colors are still the
same today, almost half a century later. Learning musical styles,
scales and theory has not changed that way of experiencing music. So,
I'm thinking that maybe there really are universal human "musical
archetypes" (similar to what C.G. Jung described).
> On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 12:20 PM, samba - wrote:
>> I think the last note is more important than the first,as in
>> 'there are no wrong notes just bad resolutions'.
...food for thought!
>> On May 1, 2005, at 21:42, David Trenkel wrote:
> In my experience, both playing live looping and watching other
> loopers, it seems like the last note is much harder to find than
> the first...
He, he... well put! I once stepped on the wrong floor button and
everything went dead silent at a very odd part of the musical flow. I
was as surprised as the listeners ;-) Still wondering over that
missing "last note" that no one will ever be able to hear ;-)
Greetings from Sweden
http://www.boysen.se (Swedish site)