Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 9:43 AM 1/30/01, Joe Osborne wrote: >At this point I can't help but to believe that this thread is looking more >and more like a justification for random noise. To use a quote made in >regards to another subject (in this case I'll apply it to music), "I don't >know what it is. But I know it when I see (hear) it". Just because >something >may or may not be commercially successful does not validate it. OK, here's a thought exercise. Why do we need a definition of music? I mean really, what purpose does it serve to say that something is or is not music? I have yet to find a definition stated that doesn't exclude something that I can think of as being possibly musical. And what's wrong with justifiying random noise? A lot of stuff that I listen to and enjoy gets written off as random noise. Any auditory experience can be musical, if you let it be so. If you enjoy listening to it, fine. If not, you can always leave the envirionment. I find an attitude among a lot of people, far too many of them musicians, that "what is music" and "what is not music" have to be strictly defined, and those of us making anything falling on the "not-music" side of their definition are somehow cheating the world by doing what we do. I really don't understand this, even after years of often heated debate with musicians and listeners. Musicians in the avant-garde are almost always making no money, and are definitely not taking gigs and recording contracts away from more conventional musicians. >As a >guitarist I was mortified when Kurt Cobane (after killing himself) was >compared to Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix was a genius. Kurt Cobane was anything >but. It's spelled "Cobain." And I think there are comparisons: both made music that, whether or not you personally liked it, spoke to a lot of people. Both had self destructive traits that tragically ended their lives far too early, leaving a lot of music unmade. Cabain didn't revolutionize the guitar, and probably didn't intend to. But he did write some terrific songs that expressed a hell of a lot of anger ond frustration, and spoke for a lot of people, myself included. >As Wynton Marsallis once said, "Some of the music out there now is like >The Emperor's New Clothes. Just because we see flashy images, or we need >to >be convinced its real music doesn't justify it. Sometimes bad music is >just >that. Bad music. And often very few people are willing to go against the >popular media and say just that. This music is awful." If one feels the >need >to validate what they're doing it seems to me to be a level of insecurity. >If one is comfortable with they're own talent, and >effort, than they're is no one that needs convincing. Unless of course the >very argument they make is being made just to convince themselves. Quoting Wynton in an esthetic argument is a pretty dangerous thing, since he's generally shown himself to be one of the more close-minded thinkers in recent jazz. I can't fault him as a player in anyway, though I don't personally like much of what he's recorded. But I really wish he didn't appoint himself as a crusader to save Jazz from itself. For instance, Miles Davis' electric period is some of the music that has influenced me most profoundly. I still remember the first time I heard "Bitches Brew" and being totally engaged, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. I still get this kind of response to this music, and it's had an enormous impact on the music I make. Is my response to this somehow invalid because Marsalis doesn't like it? ____________________________________________ Dave Trenkel : improv@peak.org New & Improv Media http://www.newandimprov.com Now available: Admiral Twinkle Devil: Wabi Dub ____________________________________________