RE: Loopfest - the opaque veil of technology

[Patrick Bolan <pbolan@csiconstruction.com>]

Dgoat,

Of all the replies to my original posting, yours is one I have been
waiting for.  The thoughtful dialogue here has given me pause to think
about my own construct of music.  I cannot say that the "exploration" I
heard at the loopfest was articulate, but maybe in some way it was
wonderful...  

Were I alive in the early 20th century, perhaps I would have been one of
those rioting in protest after Stravinski's inaugural performance of the
Firebird Suite!  

In my own music creations, I take great satisfaction in the refinement
of it.  The notion that mistakes are allowed (maybe even encouraged?) is
tough for me.  Even though I too have a grad degree, my approach
probably has more to do with who I am than what my own particular
educational.

Next time you do the PDX fest, I'll be there.  I'll listen for what you
are talking about....

Thanks! 



-----Original Message-----
From: dgoat [mailto:dgoat@quik.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 7:50 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Loopfest - the opaque veil of technology

Howdy!

Patrick Bolan wrote:

 > As a classically-trained musician, I'd like to say a few words in the
 > name of music.


It is a truism that music has nothing to do with training. Music has 
nothing to do with theory. Music has nothing to do with most of what we 
normally think of as music :-) Music, like any other art form, is about 
perception, i.e. one person's meat is another's poison.

Music is about sound and form. Mind you, that sound can be ugly, and 
that form jagged and unpleasant.

 > Many of the acts at the Portland Loopfest were more "performance
art".


That's a good thing, right?

 > Hearing wave upon wave of amorphous withering masses of sound,
including
 > unintentional (?) feedback, screaming, and cursing, was overpowering.


Ah, you make me happy to know that at least *someone* was offended by my

potty-mouth ;-) And the Darsan Trio members would like to go on record 
as stating that their feedback is always intentional, and when it isn't,

  then they apply the Eno aphorism: "Treat thy mistakes as a hidden 
intention" and loop the result. As one of my jazz teachers taught me, if

you hit a bad note, hit it two more times and it'll be right.

As a classically trained musician, I'm sure you are aware of some of the

  eastern European composers, such as Ligeti and Penderecki (among many,

many others) who created "wave upon wave of amorphous withering masses 
of sound" using traditional classical instruments playing (often) 
unconventional, extended techniques. This use of timbre and texture as 
the motivating power in music (as opposed to harmonic/melodic motion) 
has been a well-explored theme through-out the works of many 20th 
century composers.

Many loopers meld this obsession with timbre and texture to the 
improvisers art, using the powerful engine of repetition. A sort of 20th

century "classical" mixed with "jazz".

By the way, did I mention that I am a classically trained guitarist 
*and* composer? I even have the little pieces of paper from the UMKC 
Conservatory of Music to prove it. heh heh heh...

 > Call me a purist, but the technology should be used to augment a
 > performer's skill in their instrument of choice.


Any instrument (barring the voice) is a piece of technology. And "skill"

is unimportant, only music is important. If your approach to music 
requires a lot of skill, that's great, but it doesn't make it "better" 
than music that requires little or no skill, simply different. 
Complexity does not equal better.

 > Most of the time, what

 > I heard was "look-what-I-can-do-with-this-cool-piece-of-gear".


Interesting. What I heard was honest exploration. Some of it didn't 
work, most of it did.

 >  They
 > probably had chops, but the opaque veil of technology had descended
on
 > their performances, covering up their true musical talents.


It seems you may have a somewhat narrow definition of what constitutes 
musical talent. I suggest that you check out the Shaggs.

 > (To be fair, I did not hear Admiral Twinkle Devil.)

Then maybe you also didn't hear the Darsan Trio's last piece, the 
Gymnopedie #1 by Erik Satie, a very famous classical tune, rearranged 
for guitar, bass, drums and 3 loopers.

 > Let's use this amazing technology to create things that are
articulate
 > and wonderful.


I'm not sure that being "articulate" is important, but I whole-heartedly

agree with the wonderful bit. Course, there are those people who think 
Britney Spears is wonderful, and I only like the Richard Thompson covers
:-)

D.G.
Darsan Trio
The Divided