RE: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics

["Hartung, Kris" <kris.hartung@hp.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Petersen [mailto:iep@mail.dk] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:50 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics

Kris,

> Did you read my response?

Yes.

> First of all, who gives a shit if I didn't 
> have an audience and spoons dropping in the mix. It is about the music.

>>Out of all the infinite possible titles for the CD you chose "Live at 
>the 
>>Kulture Klatsch". To me, that indicates that the 'liveness' is 
>important. 

"To me" is the operative and relative term here . I choose why the term 
"live" is important, and I chose so for reasons I shouldn't have to 
elaborate here.  It's my business how and why I title my CDs, not for you 
to second guess or impose upon me.

>>So important as to be the defining element of the title. Obviously, the 
music is the important thing on a CD, but it would be naïve to believe it 
exists in a vacuum. As soon as you give a CD a title and a cover then you 
establish a frame of reference for the music - you 'set the scene', so to 
speak. A title such as "Live at ... " has a massive amount of cultural 
baggage that, like it or not, creates expectations in the listener that 
the CD does not apparently deliver on.

You are making an assumption.  I used the term "live" because the CD was 
"recorded" live at a venue, and for me (not you or any aspect of cultural 
baggage), this has special meaning, such as that it was recorded in one 
take, involved some observation or interaction with the audience, and so 
on. YOU do not define how I choose to the term "live" on my CD, and using 
the term does not logically imply, nor does it obligate me to capture 
audience applause at the end of each song.  That is all the explaining I 
require to offer here. You have not demonstrated that this imiplication 
exists. Or are you saying I should yield to your interpretation as the 
objective gospel?

> Second, the comment 
> about it not being meditative is way off base...as I have several 
> reviewer comments and even gigs that contradict his statement.

>>So what? So different people have different conceptions of what 
'meditative' music sounds like. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone 
of any musical maturity that the boundaries of a given musical genre are 
indistinct and essentially subjective. FWIW, 'Meditative' isn't the first 
adjective that springs to my mind either ...

Exactly, then eat your own medicine and apply that logic to the CD title 
topic. Each person has a different perspective of what the term "live" 
means for a CD title, you and I being the first and most obvious 
conflicting cases here.  You want to conveniently use your concept of 
something for one argument, then not be consistent in another matter. What 
game board are you playing on now? 

> Third, he clearly thought negatively of the fact that my percussionist 
> used ethinc instruments but we weren't playing ethnic music

>>That interpretation certainly isn't clear to me. I suppose you mean his 
comment that "despite the use of ethnic instruments, there are no earth 
rhythms". I understand that comment to be about the lack of 
'psuedo-ethnic' musical clichés in your music. In other words - a 
compliment!

If you knew the reviewer, you might not make this assumption.  Either 
assumption, that it is negative or positive, is not clear, agreed; though 
I believe I have the lead here since I know who this reviewer is, his 
reputation, and have collaboration from other musicians in the area. 

>> When you send a CD - or any creative work - out into 'the wild' you 
>have 
to accept that it will have to fend for itself on its own terms. You 
can't sit down beside every single listener and instruct them on the 
'correct' way to listen to your music. There is always going to be as 
many interpretations (or misinterpretations if you will) of your work as 
there are people who hear your music. Isn't that part of the pleasure of 
making and listening to music: The fantastic range of emotions and 
interpretations a single piece of music can embody in different people?

Again, eat your own medicine, sir. If there are so many interpretations, 
then why are you complaining about the term "live" in the title?  
Obviously, people have a right to their own interpretations. This is not 
about that, but about making comments that correspond to fact, vs. 
qualifying subjective and emotive statements.

>> Again, the review gave me an idea of what sort of music to expect. 

And without ever listening to the CD, you may have thought that it had no 
tangible melody, and that it had no meditative or spiritual fare. And that 
is where your argument fails.

>> On  listening to the actual music I found those expectations to be 
>largely 
fulfilled. That, to me, is a good review! Now that probably makes me a 
cretin and musical ignoramous in your eyes, but perhaps you should 
consider the possibility that your music isn't actually communicating 
what you think it's communicating ...

I music evaluation, when the critic is not conveying objective facts, they 
may be expressing how they feel about a piece of music. In the case of 
this review (Larry), he states that the CD has no tangible melody in a 
matter of fact way, yet doesn't quality that this is how he feels or is a 
result of his unique definition of melody...yet another reviewer of that 
CD says:

"Love what you are doing here, its fidgety, tense and dramatically melodic 
at points. The sound is very precise as well, never meandering into a bad 
place. Good stuff, drt"

Larry says that the music does not have spiritual or meditative far, again 
in a matter of fact manner, yet yoga instructors and people who practice 
yoga and meditation have bought this CD exactly for this purpose.

So which is it? Are we taking about objective facts or the way people feel 
about a piece of music or CD? Do you get it now? Or will you assume that 
critic himself is immune from having to clarify his thoughts and feelings 
about music vs. stating facts.

Your argument has been quite un-convincing too me and seemingly flawed 
based on the counter-examples I have provided.

Good day.

Kris


-- 

  Ian Petersen