RE: On being complete nerds (and longhairs)

[Laurie Hatch <lahatch@dnai.com>]

Paolo said:
>Below is my top-ten rotation of CDs in my current listening.  It's funny 
>that
>just a few years ago, I was under the influence of the UCSD Music 
>Department
>in that I snobbishly avoided any music that I or the professors and 
>graduate
>students would consider "not innovative/creative enough".  It's taken some
>time to open my mind and not be ashamed of liking the music I like. :)

Good for you!  Yeah, too bad about much of music academia:  self 
confidence in 
one's musical autonomy is constructed and deconstructed at the same time.  
But 
that's another discussion...

Great list!

>...8. Modest Mussorgsky - Pictures At An Exhibition

>Not much to say about this classic.  ...

Allow me:

(The following is a peripheral-to-the-topic, Sunday morning introspection, 
but 
I do eventually get around to looping.  It is not nearly as, shall we say, 
stimulating as a Butt Looper!)

Pictures:  I'm curious if you have a fave performance, Paolo - there are 
so 
many.  Although I do enjoy the orchestral recordings, I'm partial to 
Mussorgsky's original score for solo piano.  (Loren Hollander's version is 
exceptionally  dynamic and expressive, but unfortunately out of print.)  
IMHO, 
Ravel's orchestration was an extraordinary accomplishment, but I almost 
think 
something was lost - the original piano score's unadorned elegance and 
starkness are less evident in more texturally complex orchestral 
renditions. 
 (Some critics are even less charitable about Ravel's effort, bless 'em.  
Hey, 
each to his/her own!  Would that our respective talents were all as 
generously 
endowed as Ravel's! ...Hmmm, that didn't sound quite right...)

So what does this have to do with looping?  Well, it got me to thinking 
what 
Ravel might have done with an electronically enhanced orchestra and 
looping 
devices/instruments.  Or Mussorgsky, for that matter.  Although for me, in 
this 
case, MM's composition and choice of instrument virtually define each 
other. 
 Anyway, seems like it would have been pretty cool.  (Remember Emerson, 
Lake, 
and Palmer's version?  Took a lot of b-, uh, guts to tread in MM's 
enormous 
footprints.  I lost that album, the vinyl kind, in a move long ago. It's 
reissued on CD.  Wonder how it has stood the test of time?)

This brings up the related thread about compositional approach and 
inspiration, 
to which I'd like to add:

The differences between MM's original, and Ravel's interpretation 
(independent 
of one's personal preference or opinion) are excellent examples of the 
challenge that all musicians face.  We continually make decisions, 
consciously 
and unconsciously, about the validity/necessity/success of each component 
and 
layer in our "audio collages" (yeah, great description).  For us modern 
loopers, the relative profusion of tools that allows us to easily build 
incredibly dense, multi-layered sounds can be both a blessing and a curse. 
 It 
is tempting to add more and more, because it's fun, and it's easy!  
However, we 
must be careful not to suffocate the unaffected freshness, vitality, 
--rawness!-- that illuminate our expressions.  That's what inspired us to 
create them in the first place.

laurie


>From TimeLor@Mountain.net Sun Nov 23 12:27:28 1997