Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 20:56 04/04/06, you wrote: >>The educational/academic establishments now promote music which >>"most people don't consider music". > > >they do? i can't think of an educational establishment promoting >someone like Merzbow or Pita, even Einsutrzende Neubaten or La Mont >Young, an art-mag darling. (well, maybe La Mont...) In UK the academic music scene seems full of atonal stuff. and of course MAX/MSP. So while they don't support your favourite pop bands, they still manage to favour music that doesn't immediately appeal to the majority. >they promote so- called "new music" (Philip >Glass), basically classical music updated >a little. > it's still tied to all the previous pseudo-scientific >"rules" from the 18th century of music theory. most people might not >like it, but i suspect they consider it music. you'd be surprised, my music was called "that's not jazz, that's not even music" quite recently. >it's simply a class >differentiation (or education difference, or degree of indoctrination >some might say) for people to appreciate Mozart or Varese or >Stockhausen instead of The Gypsy Kings or the Rolling Stones. Isn't that the sort of statement that would look better with a bit of supporting evidence? ;-) I'd make an equally unsupported statement that there's a vast majority of people who would never like Stockhausen however much they were encouraged. >. some things are quite different and others not so >much... a Kurt Schwitters sound-poem from 1920 is still pretty >radical, http://www.ubu.com/sound/schwitters.html amazing how musical Schwitters performance is. Just by listening, I'd assume his intention was to make beautiful sounds. >i think Attali's point about a future stage of "composers" (which he >wrote 30 years ago), where the former passive consumer of music, >whose main function was a capitalistic one of purchasing recordings >of music, instead in some fashion creates (or 'composes') their own >music has proved somewhat accurate. he could not forsee PodCasts, >file sharing, mash-ups, ableton Live, and so on, but given his >remoteness his prescience seems remarkable. so you think capitalists are turning into artists because they can take someone else's music and re-sample it? >i think people who don't "believe" in politics are playing into the >hands of those systems who would control us. Where are these people who don't believe in politics? We all believe that the government exists. ( possibly not Klobucher...who can tell) Rather there are people who believe that politics is the government of a country. ( oh, and the study of the government of a country) > at least privately realize the political ramifications >of their participation in the world in all its aspects, and not to >deny these things. The government of the country you live in won't be influenced by the music that you play. >my semi-coherent 2-cent rambling, once again ;) and mine ;-) apologies for bandwidth >- you will now be returned to your regular broadcast >-3nki At 20:56 04/04/06, you wrote: >polˇiˇtics (pl-tks) >n. >The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a just quoting loads of stuff doesn't make a case. There's plenty of dictionaries that connect politics with government. The Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so how do we know you didn't just change it before quoting it :-) If "everything is political", then the word "politics" becomes useless. andy