Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
"Experimental" can't be a "genre" because it has more to do with common expectations than with the sound produced. Of course any beginning musician can be (subjectively) experimental with regard to his/her previous experience but in order to be referred to as experimental in public the musical activities need to in some way go against public expectations and at least break some new territory. The word "experimental" suffers for bad karma in a similar way that "free improvisation" does; i.e. many people think that it means that music does sound in a certain way rather than understanding the word for what it really means (experiment = "try out new concepts or ways of doing things" or "a procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact") Maybe it is best for a musician to shut up about experimentation and let the listener decide how to label the produced music? Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen www.boysen.se www.perboysen.com www.looproom.com internet music hub On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Doc Rossi <docittern@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm with Andy. > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Matt Stevens >>> <mattstevensguitar@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> New experimental music is happening all over the world right now - >kids >>>> messing with tech - they don't care about definitions of the Avant >>>> Garde. >> >> Per Boysen wrote: >>> >>> I'm with Matt on this. >> >> sure :-) >> but what does it mean >> 1) Experimental as in the genre named by Cage in the 1950's >> >> 2) Experimental as in the music is in some way an experiment. When >> I wrote a classical guitar piece in rondo sonata form *that* >> was certainly an experiment...wasn't very groundbreaking tho'. >> >> Varese was messing with tech in the 1950's >> >> >>> "Genres" are obsolete. >> >> so far the "nothing new since the 1950's" >> hypothesis stands. >> >> >> andy >> > >