Essence of essential...

[Andre LaFosse <altruist@earthlink.net>]

Yo Mark.

>I've got to disagree with Andre's idea of what an "essential" recording 
>is.  Why should it have to be technically groundbreaking in some way?  
>Can't it just be really good music? (In this case really good loop 
>music)  If we had an essential rock or blues discussion, would be have 
>he same criteria? 

To me, the main issue at hand is: did a recording bring something
particularly noteworthy to the creative dialogue of looping?  It doesn't
necessarily have to be some intensely new technical element, and it
doesn't have to have been popular in its time by any means.  

For instance, Torn's two mid-'90s albums seem like shoe-ins for
"essential" recordings, and I think it's because they're pretty
definitive statements of what he did.  I don't know if there's anything
on either of those records that totally technically unprecedented, but I
don't think it matters.  They get to the essence of what David does (or
at least was doing with a certain window of time) and documented them
more thoroughly and clearly than any of his previous recordings.  And
they had a big impact on a lot of people here.  Sounds like a winner to me.

The issue of "good music" can be a nebulous one, too.  I certainly agree
that "No Pussyfooting" belongs in the list, but I personally have a
really hard time sitting through all of side one.  I know it's the album
that launched a thousand ships and had a huge impact, so it's an
"important" record for sure.  I wouldn't put it on for listening
enjoyment, myself, though.  Is it "good?"  That's very subjective.  For
me, the album might fall into that "technically interesting but
musically bland" category we're so afraid of.  But that doesn't make the
album unimportant, and I know a lot of people feel differently.

I think the era that something was done in is an important factor as
well.  If Robert had done "No Pussyfooting" ten years earlier, it would
have had a very different meaning, because it would have predated a lot
of the time-lag SF Tape Center stuff.  Does it assume a different
meaning coming six years after Terry Riley's "Rainbow in Curved Air"?  I
would say so.  Would a Fripp fan's opinion of the album change
substantially after hearing Terry Rilery or other SFTMC people?  That's
a good question.

If someone really digs The Strokes, is it important to have them listen
to Lou Reed and Television?  Should Lenny Kravitz fans be pointed in the
direction of Jimi Hendrix and Prince?  

Does it "mean" something different to play ambient saxophone loops in
1998 (or even 1973) than it did in 1968?  I would definitely say so,
just like I'd say that it means something very different to play "Giant
Steps" in 1989 (or even 1964) than it did when Coltrane did it in 1959.

This is basically what I've been trying to talk about with regards to
Terry's recordings as well.  Are they good documents of the craft?  I
think so.  Are they significant in terms of "bringing something to the
discussion?"  That's what I've been trying to determine, by asking
questions regarding their relationship to what other people had done up
to that point.

So I do think that at a certain point an "essential recordings list"
needs to have a certain selectivity - otherwise I think you'll very
likely end up with (for sinstance) dozens and dozens of ambient guitar
loop albums from across thirty plus years, and it becomes extremely
difficult to assess what the impact of any of them may have had relative
to one another.

[in fast Liam Lynch voice] So, so, I was checkin' my email the other
day, an', an' I get this post from Marky Sarcastillaro an' he's all
like, "Eeeeeugh" an' I'm all like, "WHATevah!"

;)

OK,

--Andre