Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Rainer, Good response, great discussion. I just wanted to instigate some good musical (and not necessarily political) discussion on the list. I felt bad that earlier on . . . I was afraid folks might think I was being a curmudgeonly old goat about "music" labels It seems like it was taken in the spirit in which I meant it. And we got some pretty good participation. Yeah the sig I used to use on my emails was "Different is not always better, but better is always different". I don't know where exactly I picked that up . . . probably from somebody else on the list. Perhaps I should resurrect it. Best regards, tEd ® KiLLiAn Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain http://www.myspace.com/tedkillian http://www.reverbnation.com/tedkillian http://www.pfmentum.com/PFMCD007.html http://www.CDbaby.com/cd/tedkillian http://www.guitar9.com/fluxaeterna.html http://www.indiejazz.com/ProductDetailsView.aspx?ProductID=193 http://guitarplayer.com/article/y2k6-international-live/Jun-07/27768 Ted Killian's "Flux Aeterna" is also available at Apple iTunes On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill wrote: > So...again, I'm going to try the analytical approach, and comment on > some > posts as I go (and I hope you authors pardon me for not specifically > mentioning you there): > > It's interesting if we look first at what wikipedia has to say about it > ("it" being "experimental music": > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music > > "Experimental music is a term introduced by composer John Cage in 1955. > According to Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the > outcome > of which is not foreseen" " > > and furthermore (paraphrasing here): > Michael Nyman used the term to describe American composers as opposed > to the > European avant-garde at the time. > > According to David Nicholls, avant-garde is at the extreme of the > tradition, > while experimental lies outside of it. > > So we have more or less three different definitions: > (1) music for which the outcome is not foreseen (Cage) > (2) odd music from America (Nyman) > (3) music which has no relation to tradition (Nicholls) > > Not very helpful here...so I looked at wikipedia's definition of > "experiment": > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment > > "An experiment is defined, in science, as a method of investigating > less > known fields, solving practical problems and proving theoretical > assumptions." > > Of these three parts, I don't understand what is meant by the second > one in > this context, but I can well understand the first and the third one and > agree with them also in our musical context. > > It's again nice to see that only Cage's use of the word "experimental" > in > musical context has any relation whatsoever to the meaning of > "experiment" > and is such somehow valid etymologically. So how to apply that to our > discussion? > > Ted said: "If you "make it up as you go along" but still everything > sounds > more-or-less like a 3-minute pop song that's not very experimental. > > If you do the above and add a recursive loop or ebow drone it's not > really any more "experimental" than if you'd added a kazoo." > > Hey, that works with the Cage definition. In both cases, the outcome is > foreseen. > > Jeff said: > "I call it experimental but the music and technique are old school and > nothing new. What is experimental for me in this instance is the video > itself because I am trying new things. Even that is experimental only > to > me because the effects that I am experimenting with are tried and true > stock > > stuff." > > Obviously, you couldn't foresee the outcome here, so yes, experimental! > > And now Warren: > "i thought the operational defn was simply "music no-one likes". " > > This is a little bit trickier. Now I have the theory that the majority > of > people want to have predictable things in their lives. So if we replace > "no-one likes" with "the majority does not like" (and I think you > implied > that), then that definition fits (if my theory is correct). > > However, it is important to see that this definition does only work in > one > direction, as we clearly can see from Ted's next post, where he goes on > about people saying: > "3) I play music that no one understand or likes . . . so I must be an > experimental musician." > > So obviously, while experimental music is music no-one likes, music > no-one > likes is not necessarily experimental. > > (Btw I think it was you, Ted, who had that great sig saying something > like > "Different is not always better, but better is always different") > > Now another thing from Daryl: > "If the goal is to genuinely try out something new that you have not > done > before, I call that experimenting, hence experimental." > - which also fits with the Cage definition, btw. > > So obviously, it first of all matters that nobody knows what will > happen > (which makes doing it a lot easier, because you do not always find > completely new approaches). But still with that in mind, I believe it > is > necessary to define some kind of threshold, which of course then is > completely subjective. > (For example, if I do something completely conventional, like perform > Beethoven's op.110, which thousands of pianists have done before, a > string > might break, which I did not foresee). > > Finally, in my own music: it stays experimental for some time, until I > get > used to it, then I do something new. What I did at this year's Boise > Experimental Music Festival was experimental, because I had no idea > how the > combination of playing trombone (which I haven't been doing since > 2001) with > a new configuration of my laptop setup would sound and develop. > > Rainer > > (sorry, got rather long-winded. All hail Cage!) >