Support |
Kris, > It's my business how and why I title my > CDs, not for you to second guess or impose upon me. I don't want to impose anything on you. Far from it. You are of course free to name your CDs in any way you see fit. But I - and any other listener - must surely be entitled to interpret said title in any way we see fit based on cultural baggage, intelligence or lack thereof. > I used the term "live" because the CD was "recorded" live at a > venue, and for me (not you or any aspect of cultural baggage), this > has special meaning, such as that it was recorded in one take, > involved some observation or interaction with the audience, and > so on. Fine. But I only know that because you are able to tell me now 'in person', so to speak. That explanation is not explicit in the work itself - and won't be available to the majority of your potential listeners - and is thus open to (mis)interpretation. > YOU do not define how I choose to the term "live" on my CD No, but I define how I choose to interpret it. > nor does it obligate me to capture audience applause at the end of each >song. No, of course not. That is just one of many potential expectations I, as listener (with cultural baggage etc.) have on reading a title such as "Live at ..". Note, there is no value judgement here, just the observation that I don't necessarily 'get' what you mean by the title without your subsequent explanation. > Each person has a different perspective of what the term "live" > means for a CD title, [ ... ] You want to conveniently use your concept > of something for one argument, then not be consistent in another > matter. Sorry, I don't follow you here. My conception of both 'live' and 'meditative' are primarily subjective but obviously influenced by 'cultural baggage' or whatever we want to call it. As is yours or anyone else's. If you accept that our conceptions are subjective how can you, at the same time, still imply that your conception is the only 'correct' one? No matter how many others regard your music as 'meditative' doesn't make it objective fact. > In the case of this review (Larry), he states that the CD has no > tangible melody in a matter of fact way, yet doesn't quality that > this is how he feels or is a result of his unique definition of > melody In the context of what is apparently a mainstream popular local 'arts' paper I think the definition of melody is likely closer to 'something you can whistle in the bath' than any other more esoteric definition. In that context I'd agree with the reviewer that the music has little, if any, tangible 'melody'. You yourself have posted a link to a page with a couple of dozen definitions of 'melody'. Lots of possible interpretations there ... We seem to be arguing about objective fact contra subjective opinion, and who gets to define the terms. I am firmly of the opinion that no artist can reasonably expect to make the 'rules' as to how his work is interpreted by his audience. The work must stand by itself or not at all. If you feel your work is misinterpreted then its your job as artist to make sure it doesn't get misinterpreted next time. You do that by making better art, not by crying 'foul' at the audience. Cheers -- Ian Petersen