Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, William Walker wrote:
> Maybe it is best for a musician to shut up about experimentation and
> let the listener decide how to label the produced music?
> Bingo!!! my sentiments exactly, when people ask me what kind of music
> i play, I just smile and say "good music" because quite frankly I'm
> tired of that question, I think a genre -less world is ultimately a
> better world, at least i wont be having to describe my music to people
> hoping I mention a genre they can relate to.
>
I agree completely with the sentiment too and your desire for a
genre-less world, I too, get really tired of
trying to explain myself to people It's a constant irritation in my life.
At the same time, It's also occurred to me that human beings are both
social animals and we also process information
using pattern orientation rather than a linear one.
I think it is human nature to categorize; to align themselves with
movements and genres. It's built into our neurophysiology...........it
is built into our natural biological orientation.
Categorizing helps us sort through the vast amount of information (and
music styles) that exist through the world.
When you walk into a record store looking for something to buy (if
anyone actually still does that) it is natural
to seek out at least a broad genre of musics to peruse through.
Otherwise it would take hours
to stumble on something that you might like. Likewise when you talk to
another person about a musical
event they have witnessed, it's always important how they describe the
event in a way that is compelling
enough to get you to go to it.
This doesn't, of course, mean that we can't be more discerning;
more intelligent in how we make our choices in life
but I think it's inevitable that musicians outside of the mainstream
will be forced to describe their music to people,
especially if we ever hope to attract a slightly larger crowd to our
performances.
Let's face it, the Bill Frissels, Robert Fripps, Eivind Aarsets and
Nels Clines of the world HAVE to have some kind of a fan base in order
for us to even know about them. They or someone working for them (or
legions of radio announcers and foaming at the mouth fans) to get out
and promote them.........to put out the word............to get enough
people
to come to their shows for them to continue touring and making
commercial recordings.
Bill Frissel , as an example, is so vastly more than just a jazz
musician, but that's the handle he uses to get people
to see him play. It's arguable that he HAS to use this approach (due
largely, to the lack of organized new music
venues everywhere in any country). Once he gets the bodies into the
Kuumbwa Jazz center, as an example,
THEN he can let them just listen to his music as music without category.
I think it is inevitable to promote, consequently, if we ever hope to
play in front of audiences outside of own
respective home towns. Part of that promotion is figuring out some way
to describe one's music so that
it will intrigue people enough to come to the shows. I think there
may be musicians who have just done what
they've done and not put any energy into promoting themselves who have
gotten successful but I think
it is a very tiny minority.
There are so many choices for things to listen to in the world
now.........exponentially more choices than existed
10 years ago......exponentially more choices than existed when we grew
up..........I believe that as artists in this
age we have still got to realize that it takes some promotion to get
ourselves out to some kind of
decent listener-ship. If we only want to stay at home and hope the
world finds us, despite how incredible the
music may be, the chances of that happening are highly
unlikely.............especially the way media exists
in the current time.
I see a lot of artists who use this approach growing old, cynical
and bitter about the world.
This seems a waste because the world is full of wonderful new music that
is constantly bubbling up.