Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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"... smiles, Corynne 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 >are. > > <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" >syndrome. > > <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 >half. > > <That should be your goal, not the impressive list of >gear. > > <(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" >approaches. > >Perhaps it is a pattern, that you are referring too, Kim, that you >observe. > >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 >exploitation. >Some are more expensive than others, often in proportion with their >"complexity" >Complicated instruments necessarily take longer to master than simple >ones. >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 >flippancy. >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) > > >AND NOW FOR SOMETHING ELSE > >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 >jlack@auran.com > > > > > > > >