Re: Basic intro (OT)

["Michael LaMeyer" <mlameyer@rcn.com>]

Music for me is most profound and enjoyable when it communicates
emotively and intuitively, so that's my ideal.  Not necessarily
'deep' or 'complex', simple, light and subtle is fine.  I just
saw a cajun band last night.  Simple music, upbeat,
lighthearted, but it struck a chord in me and changed my mood
dramatically that evening.  Right now I'm listening to Steve
Tibbetts.  Music, nummy.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" <caliban@darklock.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Basic intro (OT)


> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:24:17 -0400, "Christopher White"
> <magicicada@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >I would hope people would not give a fick about what I use
> >and concentrate more on the qualities of the music and how
> >it makes them feel or think.
>
> That *is* what it's all about, isn't it? I find it so strange
when
> someone criticises music based on some ridiculous thing like
"oh, that
> 'chiff' patch on the DX7 has been SO overused". It strikes me
as very
> much like walking into a gallery and saying "pfft, he used
yellow ochre,
> how plebeian". And the converse applies, as well; when someone
says
> something like "you made heavy use of second intervals, that's
such a
> profound departure from current musical standards", I just
want to smack
> him. It's like we're more concerned with the blueprint than
the house.
>
> >it is all communication we all just use a different
> >languages or gestures- ya know-
>
> Which leads into another interesting question, to what extent
do people
> here think their music communicates or is intended to
communicate? There
> are many musicians who think music needs to have deep, complex
meaning;
> there are others who think music is just music, and who cares
what it
> says. There's no right or wrong answer on this, of course, but
I'm
> interested in people's positions with respect to their own
music.
>