Support |
Hasn't it always been a human trait to mimic or replicate the human experience through art? I agree that many of us could benefit from going through life paying close attention to our surroundings, viewing and listening to everything with awareness. I personally attempt to do this (I get easily distracted) in my efforts to be more spiritually thoughtful and reflective. There is a correlation between the times I'm successful at being mindful of my surroundings and the times I'm most satisfied with my musical output. I don't think there is an arrogant motive to create music that rivals nature's music. I believe there is an inner need to participate with nature and I do so by twiddling knobs and strumming chords. Boy, now I'm starting to get deep. I need to go watch ESPN! -- Alan -----Original Message----- From: Morgan Lang <mhl21@columbia.edu> To: Loopers Delight <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com> Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 12:23 PM Subject: RE: loop religion (1) ><there is no difference between music and environmental ><sounds, as John Cage pointed out. > >Your point is well taken. However, I must ask why, if "there is no difference >between music and environmental sounds," people continue to make "music"? >Isn't it conceited of us to think that we can make better sounds than >those >that we might encounter taking a walk, for example? Is the ultimate point of >Cage and the other aleatorists (including Olivieros) to make us consider >taking a walk to be as "active" a musical activity as making a music commodity >such as a CD? > >It might be useful for us all to take a big step back (or forward) and ask why >we prefer to strum chords and twiddle knobs instead of, say, considering the >sound of our own breathing to be music. (As a former smoker, I can >conceptually get behind "musical breathing"...wheeze, gasp...). > >Anyway, > >MHL. >