Subject: Re: Fwd: The Artist's Right To Be Boring (was: Re: the best.... the worst....)
Good discussion, by somebody with enough experience to recognize
the need for DISCIPLINE (defined as Structure, not Obedience) in
music, as in everything you actually give a husky fuck about. Yes,
Virginia (and Stefan), there is FAILURE. I'm a seasoned expert on
this topic, so you can trust me here. Yep, the artist must be
"allowed" to fail, because, whether there is allowance or not, IT'S
GONNA HAPPEN. Because we're *human*, not gods or muses, even when
we're engaged in allegedly "inspired" activities. It's a sad fact
that you can't learn from a mistake *until you make it*; it's
tragic when some "free spirit" doesn't learn from a mistake because
he or she can't admit it was a mistake, or even that mistakes are
possible. Sure, anything that makes a sound can be *considered* a
musical instrument; every sound can be *heard* as music. But that
doesn't elevate it to the same level of achievement as the best
music made by people who have real musical ability honed by
experience in FAILURE. It's NOT "all good". Just because something
can be argued to be "legitimate" doesn't make it valuable or worthy.
The great fallacy (and colossal waste of time) of the 20th century
was the obsession with "validity": "Is it art?" "Is it music?"
Who gives a shit? Is it worth a damn? Is it worth the cover?
Sure, it's "valid" as this or that art form on a conceptual basis;
but is it any good at all? These are questions that *can* be
answered; it just takes a few generations for the clues to
accumulate.
Meanwhile, "non-judgemental thinking" just leads around in circles,
winds up being just another form of mental masturbation. THERE IS
GOOD. THERE IS BAD. *We* won't be the ones to render a final
assessment, but we're sure as hell part of the discussion. Unless
we attempt to abdicate on some namby-pamby all-inclusive pseudo-
"liberalism", in which case WHY BOTHER?
