Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 1:58 PM -0500 12/23/05, joe rut wrote: >What this joke form points out to me is that music is only relevant >within a context. Drugs (LSD and others in the case of the Dead, >and ecstasy/ >speed and others in the case of techno) were vital to creating the >context in which the music was created, and often appreciated. "Often," but not exclusively. I'd say acid was absolutely essential to the creation of the Dead's groupmind, and I'll confess that I was high on acid the first time I heard them play, but you don't have to be on acid to play that way and you don't have to be on acid to appreciate what they did. (In the later years it helped if you had a tolerance for weak but heartfelt vocals and the patience to endure group improvisations that weren't truly interactive, but that's another conversation.) >Other "contexts" that might guide what people like/dislike about >forms of music might include: >A deeply ingrained feeling that all is right with the world. >A deeply ingrained feeling that the world is a piece of shit. >A belief, or lack thereof, in a kind, loving supreme being. >Lots of coffee. >People who don't use their turn signal. >A fixation on "intellect". >A fixation on "emotion". >A belief that music is only meaningful with chord progressions. >An aptitude for higher mathmatics. >Hatred of numbers of any kind. > >Blah, Blah, Blah. The list is infinite. I love it. >Maybe I would feel the same way about the particular loops to which >they listened (that something was missing). But I always try to >explore *why* a piece of music works or does not work for me. For >me, the answer is *never* something missing in the music. The >answer is *always* something missing in the context. OK. Maybe >not *always*. I forget how my brain works and shift into *objective >mode* sometimes (usually when discussing music over a pint of >Guiness). But I try to stay aware that my feelings on anything are >the result of an interaction between the thing and myself. I find I >can learn quite a bit by exploring what it is about my context that >makes a piece of music work or not work for me. In becoming aware >of *why* something does not work for me, I begin to understand that >thing/myself better. Somtimes that exploration leads me to even >change my mind about the thing. I have a tendency to approach music (as other forms of art) on its own terms. I know a few self-styled critics who love to tear something apart for not being what the critic would have created if only he'd had the time, blah blah blah - but to me it makes more sense to let the art define its own terms, and find out what it's trying to say. (That's the best way to deal with the Grateful Dead, of course: they built a universe of their own and succeeded mightily in there, and the fact that so many found their music incomprehensible or worse made no difference to their ability to earn a handsome living doing it. I know what's good about GD music and what's good about other music, and I don't confuse the two.) >What did the music critic say after his preconceptions wore off? >Hmmmmm. That might be interesting. Joe, you and I are both songwriters who also do loop work. I think that means we live in (at least) two worlds at the same time, sorta. -- David Gans - david@trufun.com or david@gdhour.com Truth and Fun, Inc., 484 Lake Park Ave. #102, Oakland CA 94610-2730 Blog: http://playback.trufun.com