What I really find bothersome here is the incessant emphasis of mechanics
over art, and single-minded effort to get us all to fall in line.
Why would you assume this? You mean we
can't have a focused discussion on a particular topic that happens to be
technical or mechanical related, without you jumping to the conclusion that we
are holding that particular topic as more important than art? That's sort of
restrictive and a way of censoring our freedom of thought, wouldn't
you say?
Bottom line: Having the conversation
doesn't mean that we don't understand or value the artistic elements of the
music. That is a false cause or false association
fallacy. We are just having the damn
conversation. I supposed experts in the marshal arts can't talk about the
mechanics of their art (which are very important, btw), without disregarding
their art? I don't think so. It's just a conversation about a specific
point.
We go about our personal disciplines to
accomplish these choices of expression, then we take it into the artistic
world to make our statements. Fuzz, no fuzz, dark, brite . . . some of my
favorite moments in guitar are ones thet defy technique; how did they do
THAT?! moments, and I've had them myself and relish the experience of
confounding myself in the act of expression.
So YEAH: As a guitar
teacher, YES, I would encourage students to get a little technique and
backbone, but I could give a shit once they hit the stage or recording studio.
DID THEY MOVE ME OR NOT?
Good for you. Most of us probably agree
with you, I don't know why you are trying to stifle a discussion on a
particular point that happens to be mechanical related, when we clearly have
never made the claim that it is more important or valuable than the artistic
element. I mean, who is going to argue for that? That is a massive straw
dog fallacy. I built no such case, so I don't see the point of building
it for the sake of tearing it down to look like a counter-argument of the
original, isolated claim.
