> Even with jazz, studios are booked for
a pre-arranged time and you have to fit that creativity in on
demand.
With "most" modern jazz that is....you mean that,
right? There are still jazzers who record live in the studio. And of
course in the olden days, this is how all of them did it...when you heard an
album, it was an actual "record" of an event, not a paste together collage of
parts. Several years ago I went to the Linell Hampton Jazz Festival at Mosco,
Idaho, and Phil Elwood, who was a jazz critic for the San Fransciso Examiner,
gave a lecture on this very topic. It was very interesting, and I believe he
really made listeners think differently about what it is they are listening to
when they buy a jazz CD...an actual event? A pasting of pre-recorded
parts? It is intriguing, and also in my opinion a sad commentary on the
state of modern jazz, or music in general. My preference is to listen to music
that is recorded on the spot, either live or in the studio.
> Of course painter DO have to complete
comissions according to a time scedule. "'Twas ever thus" as the bard would
say. When I wrote music for a living I had very tight schedules but found that
I always found my muse on time. and when we perform live we have a pre-defined
slot in which to pull the musical rabbit out of the bag.
Well, you admit that some painters don't have to
do this, right? You were generalizing, I suspect...I hope. There are
artists out there who don't actually have to produce art for a living, and
have the luxury of doing what they want and when they want to do
it.
Kris
Does anyone actually go into the studio with
the intent of recording all the songs for a looping CD? This would feel very
restrictive and unnatural to me, like trying to force art into a bottle, or
like telling a painter he has to go into a room and complete a great
painting in 6 hours.
