Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Kevin - I did qualify "from an emotional respective" and "borderline", did I not? I didn't say I or anyone should actually hold listeners accountable to understand the process by which I or they create music down to the gnat's ass. Let's put the ball back in your court. Is it arrogant to "feel" a certain way about how people interpret your music, yet not actually hold them accountable or demand of them that they take any action? I think emotion is on our side here. You can't demand how a person should feel. Also, I don't think everyone on the list would desire listeners to know every single detail of how they recorded or performed a piece, such as the very particular example you use regarding type of film, processors in parallel, etc. Speaking for myself, I'm just fine with people understanding two things: that my music is improvised, and that I'm using looping technology to create multiple layers of live guitar parts. That's it. That's all I need to get my point across and differentiate my music from other forms of non-improvised music. I never articulated any really technical or specific requirements on this form of understanding. And I also specifically stated that I believe both approaches to listening to music are valid. Hence, I'm not really advocating any categorical claims that require anyone to do anything. To use your phrasing below, yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to enjoy the image and take pleasure it without investing time and energy in learning about the process. Why wouldn't this be acceptable? Are we laying down laws here? I also think it is acceptable for someone to want to understand the whole process behing the music. I think its acceptable for people to feel anything they want to feel about a piece of music, an artist, or what other people feel about their music. It's all acceptable, man....remember, it's not physics and mathematics. There are no objective rules here, IMO, just the empirical fact of the music and how people feel about it. We're just talking about what we would like here and how certain listener responses make us feel as artists. There's nothing wrong with that, unless we're living in a fascist world. Kris -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Cheli-Colando [mailto:kevin@minds-eye.org] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 10:38 AM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: RE: means to an end (was "the diatonic-chromatic-noise paradigm") > >> is it valid to appreciate the music entirely disregarding how it > got there? even if one were to accept that a musician is just a "channel" > for some higher entity, & that the music comes through rather than is > made by him, his listener in choosing to remain ignorant of this > process is being a bit disrespectful, no? > > Good question. From an emotional perspective, I am inclined to agree > with you here that a listener disregarding the process by which you > create your art is less than desirable, and even bordering > disrespectful. With no offense meant, this seems like an incredibly arrogant place to be coming from in your artistic work(s). Just to enlarge upon this idea a bit; would a person who doesn't understand what lenses, type of film and aperture settings were used and doesn't really care be somehow disrespectful of the photo and the photographer? Would they be suspect in simply enjoying the image and taking some pleasure in viewing it without investing the time and energy in learning about the origin and process of that photo? I know that the process of making music is endlessly fascinating to those of us on this list, but to ask that any potential audience you may have be educated and equally interested in knowing how hard it is to configure the bazillion processors in parallel (or how long it took to master that scale) so you could make that one sound is asking a bit much I think. Disrespectful? Talking during a performance might be but not being concerned with the human drama behind the art? Kevin How amazing, how amazing! Hard to comprehend that Nonsentient beings expound Dharma. It simply cannot be heard with the ear, But when sound is heard with the eye, Then it is understood. - Tung-shan (807-869) Sound and Vision: http://www.minds-eye.org