[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Gear judgement and expression

  I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but since we're decideing to take
issue with statements, here goes...  As an instructor, I would say that
it's not necessarily true that a player of limited skills will most'likely
sound worse than one who is "proficient"...



At 01:44 PM 3/25/98 +1000, you wrote:
>I am often suspicious of statements like the one below.
>Kim Flint wrote:
>               <you know, for the longest time now I've had this simple
>judgement criteria
>                <when I walk into a show:
>               <The more expensive a band's gear is, the worse they
>               <turns out to be true surprisingly often. It's either
>the weekend warrior
>               <thing where they have a good day job, plenty of
>disposable income to buy
>               <toys, and no time to practice, kids with rich parents
>and no particular
>               <dedication to anything, or what we might call the
>               <"guy-with-small-penis-and-really-fast-sports-car"
>               <The people who are really confident in their music
>skills seem quite able to
>               <get on stage with really simple gear, and they are the
>ones that usually end
>               <up impressing hell out of me. I'll never forget the
>time I saw Max Roach
>               <play with the bare minimum of a drum set, and keep an
>auditorium full of
>               <jazz musicians fully entertained for an hour and a
>               <That should be your goal, not the impressive list of
>               <(although I still think you should buy two echoplexes
>:-)  )
>I don't understand the purpose of such generalised public statements.
>Almost everybody, through life experience,  has an intuitive
>understanding of the stereotypes outlined, 
>and most on this list have heard the arguments for "gear" vs "purist"
>Perhaps it is a pattern, that you are referring too, Kim, that you
>My response to your judgement criteria is this:
>Anything that produces sonic energy is a musical instrument.
>Some are more "complicated" than others.
>All have characteristics which are open to interpretation and
>Some are more expensive than others, often in proportion with their
>Complicated instruments necessarily take longer to master than simple
>Anyone who has only a base level of mastery on an instrument is more
>likely to sound "worse"
>than someone who has a high mastery.
>Additionally, what the musician visualizes or wishes to play, how they
>vitalize that, 
>and how the audient translates it, all influence sounding "worse" in
>relation to something else. 
>And for there to be a "worse" there has to be something "better".
>And it's OK if you're intent, Kim,  was nothing more than an exercise in
>Because that is entertaining as well.          
>So, now that I have said nothing, I will say something:
>Music toys should not be prejudiced for the reason that someone else
>uses them badly.
>In, fact, you would think it is the motivation for doing it well.
>It is so easy to "just get along" with all musical instruments of all
>race, colour, material and delay memory if you just break down the
>walls. (Sob)
>Does any other loopers out there feel that the arrival of more
>expressive control devices is overdue?
>If you think about it, the volume pedal is a very simple thing.
>Can't we do better?
>Instead of being able to control one parameter with one appendage, we
>should be able to achieve a higher resolution.
>Like, the flexion of each joint, say?
>Or maybe contraction of muscles.
>The most promising thing I have seen to date is the Ribbon controllers
>and scratch pads, or the Korg wavedrum.
>The "mastery" of these complicated electronic toys will be assisted, I
>think, through better means of control.
>So, let's hear some weird ideas, eh?
>Jamie the designer