Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On the subject of naming stuff (Frippertronics, Belewps etc), isn't it just about things being memorable? Perhaps, market driven, perhaps an affectation, or sinisterly perhaps an attempt to claim credit for things as yet unlabeled (x-ref the entire history of the British Empire). I think that there's something within contemporary western culture that drives us to label stuff (maybe it's an innate human trait, but I'm nowhere near detatched enough from my cultural context to make such a judgement) - I spent a long time trying to encapsulate what I do in a pithy way, and came up with AmbiEntertainment - partly cos it does seem to describe the tension inherent in my gigs between being a performance and me not really minding being part of a general sonic environment, but also just cos it's a cute word, that I've not heard anyone else use before (though I very much doubt that such an obvious link is completely original...) - there's an element of affectation in there, and some silliness, but also the desire in all of us to stand out in some way, which nicely brings me onto what SPG said... > >In any event I was looking for something that *I* could get my own >distinct > >sound out of, as opposed to attempting to replicate the work of either > >Fripp or Eno. > >I threw out or erased more material I'd composed just because > >it sounded like someone else's stuff Is it more important to be 'original' or be 'good'? We all love the notion that we could be innovators. Some of us (DT being a bright shining beacon of innovation in our midst) are, but most of us are ostensibly assimilators (I think that perhaps every musical intention is innovative in someway, though maybe there is such a thing as negative innovation?). Is that a bad thing? Is Fripp any less influential in either real or theoretical terms because he was taking that which was being caried out largely in academia and then regurgitating it in a pop context (or even that which was being used in a fringe pop way, and making it a little more mainstream)? I'm a firm believer in credit where it's due, so it would be nice if peope perceived as innovators were a little more vocal in crediting sources. On a small scale, I'm fairly quick to point out to people who have had no other introduction to looping, e-bow, solo bass or whatever else I might be dabbling in at the time that I'm not the only person in the world using those things, and that what I do is a mish-mash of influences, some of whom loop, and some of whom I then list (Frisell, Manthing, Levin, Jonatha Brooke, Spearhead, Lewis Taylor, Don Ross, Stevie Wonder, Paul Hinklin etc...) I think I'd struggle to not at least sound partly like me... being me tends to get in the way of not sounding like me. Myopia about one artist can sometimes lead to clone mode, but if one's desire is to create music of substance rather than pastiche, are obvious influences a bad thing? At the moment I'm fortunate that my biggest influence (Frisell) plays a different instrument it me, and uses a whole different bunch of gear, so his reflection in my music is perhaps less obvious that it would be if I played a Klein, and anyway the things that took him to where he is, and the influences that shape me are going to be way different. Is Frisell a closet Kajagoogoo obsessive, does he dig the Spice Girls and Pantera? He certainly didn't spend two or three years touring round Europe with a second-rate Canadian singer-songwriter, and I've never played with Zorn... So I'm not going to worry about his influence blocking my individuality, or overtaking whatever else is going on in my own musical journey. In fact, it becomes a clarifying lense, as in exploring some of the compositional, improvisational and performance models that I've encountered in his work, I've obviously be drawn down other routes that work better within my skill set, sonic paradigm and gear-pile... So is it more important to be original than good? obviously a combination is preferable, but if one is choosing aims and goals, are either valid? Or is self-expression at any cost the goal? or is it, like the rest of life, driven by the pursuit of meaning, which seems to have morphed somewhere in the last few years into the pursuit of novelty... Right I'm off before I start quoting Michael Franti, high priest of all things good in the world... :o) Thoughts, clarifications, rebuttles and general musings on any or all of the above greatly appreciated - I'm still fumbling my way through alot of these questions... big love to all Steve www.steve-lawson.co.uk