Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: means to an end (was "the diatonic-chromatic-noise paradigm")

 >> if your listener is only concerned with the end-product, & not the
torture (or otherwise) involved in bringing it to life, then they are
missing a whole emotional dimension of the work in question.   I bet
they don't read sleevenotes either. they aren't appreciating the effort,
the frustrations, the hours of blistering practice sessions, the years
of study..... the thousands of dollars you've spent on toys to be able
to do what you do.   in short, your emotional investment is meaningless
to them. 
& this is true of the "won't"s, aswell as the "can't"s. 

 >> is it valid to appreciate the music entirely disregarding how it got
there? even if one were to accept that a musician is just a "channel"
for some higher entity, & that the music comes through rather than is
made by him, his listener in choosing to remain ignorant of this process
is being a bit disrespectful, no? 

Good question.  From an emotional perspective, I am inclined to agree
with you here that a listener disregarding the process by which you
create your art is less than desirable, and even bordering
disrespectful. However, from an intellectual standpoint, I'd say that
this limited perspective of viewing music is still a valid one.  And I
only say this because I am not prepared to construct a sound argument
that clearly demonstrates that listeners are obligated to consider the
process by which a piece of art was created in their decision as to
whether they like or dislike it.  I would challenge anyone in this
discussion group, in fact, to outline an argument consisting of a set of
premises (statements)  that imply this obligation/conclusion. I think if
this could be done, one could probably publish his or her findings in
some philosophical journal of aesthetics.  I think this is part of the
enterprise of artistic expression....it isn't physics, mathematics, or
symbolic logic when it comes to prescribing guidelines for how to react
to music. In fact, I would venture to say that we are totally
unjustified in setting any of these sort of guidelines whatsoever. I
tend to side with William S. Burroughs with his quote "Nothing is true,
everything is permitted."  When it comes to the area of values and art,
I am in total agreement with this statement. 

> I often wonder about this when considering the experiences of live
show vs recording, whether this latter is studio-crafted or

Same here. I'm just a process oriented guy...the same at work. I like
the design aspect of the programs I manage, but when it is time to
implement, I lose interest.

> I might look into the audience while we're playing, & most of them are
either looking somewhere else or have their eyes shut. 
> fair enough, I think, well at least they know we're here & that it
took us some effort to get here with our stuff & set it all up, &
hopefully they can also tell we're improvising.

The improvising clarification is important to me. I usually try to
explain at some point in time during a performance that what I'm doing
is improvised on the spot, just to catch the interest of those who are
in to this sort of thing.  

> well.... can they? how does an innocent bystander, musician or no,
tell when you are improvising? is it easier to tell if it's a solo
artist or a group playing? & how much does it matter if they simply
don't care?

In principle, one wouldn't be able to tell. Good point.  You made me
think of something funny. I once had another guitarist sit in with me,
and I improvised this tune out of nowhere....I never played it again.
Then one day I went to one of this shows, and he was playing my tune as
a cover, and he gave me credit for it. I thought it was hilarious that I
hadn't even played the tune again since the first performance!
Actually, the idea of people covering my spontaneous compositions is
sort of flattering. And occasionally, I strike upon something that I
like so much, I will do it again at another show, like some small motif,

> we have some fans who turn up to every gig no matter what it costs
them to get there, & some other fans who wouldn't come see us live if we
played in their back garden. including a label boss, in fact, who's
never seen us play live. I think I need to do some research on this.

Same here...interesting, isn't it?  I have come to really appreciate
those folks who come to almost every performance. For the folks who have
never been to any of my performances, I just recently yanked them off my
distribution list. It saves all of us a lot of time. :)



The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user
of the e-mail address to which it was addressed, and may also
be privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may 
not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it
in any form whatsoever.If you have received this e-mail in error,
please e-mail the sender by replying to this message.

It is your responsibility to carry out appropriate virus and other
checks to ensure that this message and any attachments do not
affect your systems / data. Any views or opinions expressed in this
e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of MTV Networks Europe unless specifically stated,
nor does this message form any part of any contract unless so stated.

MTV reserves the right to monitor e-mail communications from
external/internal sources for the purposes of ensuring correct 
and appropriate use of MTV communication equipment.

MTV Networks Europe