|
----- Original Message -----
How can myself and so many others be so inaccurate? The stats speak
for themselves. You're awesome dude. How does it feel to be
on-the-money so consistently? -m
Hey, if that was a compliment,
thanks! :) But the ad populum is a different
story....
But to end this....I didn't say anyone
else was inaccurate in my paragraph below, only you. I don't recall anyone
saying that I was incessantly emphasizing mechanics over art, and single
mindedly trying to get everyone to fall in line. Have you re-read that a few
times to realize what you were you really saying about me, and how ludicrous
that statement appears in its generalization and meaning? Why would you say
that, unless you are purposely just trying to start a meaningless debate and
piss me off? Here are a few quotes from those who got my
original point, and then moved on to the other topics that spun
off from mine:
"Yes, we agree completely. I skimmed this
thread too quickly and didn't put the quote in its broader context. Sorry
about that."
"I
can understand the matter of things Kris is talking about. It has nothing to
do with musical taste, audience reaction or absolute judgements about this or
that "final result".
"There's a difference between an improper
or inappropriate setup and poor technique. Poor technique can be revealed
instantly by turning off the fuzz box. And if you never turn off the fuxx to
practise, your technique won't get better any time soon. I say this from
experience."
I totally admit that I am one of the most
obsessively/compulsively analytical posters on this group (and Rick knows
why), and it has annoyed many a poster. I also fully admit that my writing
style comes across as very academic and, shall I say, sometimes pompous?
Yes. That is how I write, but none of it is personal. I take things very
literally, and I get very irrated when people take one thing I say and then
twist it into something else that is easy to refute. It's like a petty version
of slander. Somtimes people take a very litteral post, and then
try to read between the lines and extrapolate something entirely
different. That is all good, but it doesn't serve as a basis to dispute
the literal point.
It's like I say X, and the next thing I
know, someone is saying I said Y, and then refuting Y and getting all bent out
of shape over Y. That's fine, but I never said Y, and half of the time,
I don't know a single person who would actually maintain Y because it is so
obvious (like saying mechanics is more important than art)....for cripes sake,
I am a director of a festival that is 100% about art, so I think I understand
this point. I loath Y! So, let's get back X.
Kris
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Krispen Hartung <info@krispenhartung.com>
wrote:
Well, if you don't like the continuous
refutation, Mikkoz, then quit making statements like:
"What I really find bothersome here is the incessant emphasis of
mechanics over art, and single-minded effort to get us all to fall in
line."
If you are going to make a claim about my post,
then I at least deserve one that is accurate, rather than one that contorts
my original point and takes is beyond its original context. What's up
with that? I never, ever said what you say, and so I don't know
why you are the one being so defensive here. If you are going to say
something about my post, get it right. I don't take to kindly of
someone telling me that I'm "incessantly" doing something, which is clearly
not the case. That is self-regulation: If someone says something
inaccurate about my post, I'm going to do something about it and defend
myself. If you can't handle the free thought and expression, or my
personal style of communicating, then stop responding to my posts. No
one is twisting your arm to fuel the fire.
Kris
-----
Original Message -----
What
I'm responding to is your continuous refutation of the many various
responses to your statements, and the possiblity that your statements
might seem somewhat absolute and rhetorical. It's not really a discussion
if you continuously say "You don't get my point!" and " . . . incorrect
interpretation!" etc.
I understand mechanics and study of the
fundamentals and lyricism and discipline in music practices." Do you get
MY POINT?" maybe not . . . I've stepped back from this list for the most
part because the increasing percentage of pedantic lectures and academic
posturing I see and the endless stream of self-promotion. There's not
enough time in the day to address it all Kris, and I used to call this
place my HOME. I have a great deal of love and affection for a good many
folks here, but I find this a hard place to interact anymore. Of course I
have other reasons for my reduction of musical activity, but this is hard
to ignore, so I'm part of the "self-regulating" feature Kim speaks of—time
to push back!
My very best to all of my friends here! Peace OUT . .
.
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Krispen Hartung
<info@krispenhartung.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
What I really find bothersome here is the incessant emphasis of
mechanics over art, and single-minded effort to get us all to fall in
line.
Why would you assume this? You mean we
can't have a focused discussion on a particular topic that happens to
be technical or mechanical related, without you jumping to the
conclusion that we are holding that particular topic as more important
than art? That's sort of restrictive and a way of censoring our
freedom of thought, wouldn't you say?
Bottom line: Having the conversation
doesn't mean that we don't understand or value the artistic elements
of the music. That is a false cause or false association
fallacy. We are just having the damn conversation.
I supposed experts in the marshal arts can't talk about the mechanics
of their art (which are very important, btw), without disregarding
their art? I don't think so. It's just a conversation about a specific
point.
We go about our personal disciplines to
accomplish these choices of expression, then we take it into the
artistic world to make our statements. Fuzz, no fuzz, dark, brite . .
. some of my favorite moments in guitar are ones thet defy technique;
how did they do THAT?! moments, and I've had them myself and relish
the experience of confounding myself in the act of
expression.
So YEAH: As a guitar teacher, YES, I would
encourage students to get a little technique and backbone, but I could
give a shit once they hit the stage or recording studio. DID THEY MOVE
ME OR NOT?
Good for you. Most of us probably
agree with you, I don't know why you are trying to stifle a discussion
on a particular point that happens to be mechanical related, when we
clearly have never made the claim that it is more important or
valuable than the artistic element. I mean, who is going to argue for
that? That is a massive straw dog fallacy. I built no such
case, so I don't see the point of building it for the sake of tearing
it down to look like a counter-argument of the original, isolated
claim.
Kris
--
Miko
Biffle
Biffoz@Gmail.com
MBiffle@FoxRacingShox.com
"Running scared
from all the usual
distractions!"
--
Miko
Biffle
Biffoz@Gmail.com
MBiffle@FoxRacingShox.com
"Running scared
from all the usual distractions!"
|
