Re: distortion, overdrive,fuzz,crunch,special sauce, secret goo

[Mikkoz <biffoz@gmail.com>]

What I'm responding to is your continuous refutation of the many various responses to your statements, and the possiblity that your statements might seem somewhat absolute and rhetorical. It's not really a discussion if you continuously say "You don't get my point!" and " . . . incorrect interpretation!" etc. 

I understand mechanics and study of the fundamentals and lyricism and discipline in music practices." Do you get MY POINT?" maybe not . . . I've stepped back from this list for the most part because the increasing percentage of pedantic lectures and academic posturing I see and the endless stream of self-promotion. There's not enough time in the day to address it all Kris, and I used to call this place my HOME. I have a great deal of love and affection for a good many folks here, but I find this a hard place to interact anymore. Of course I have other reasons for my reduction of musical activity, but this is hard to ignore, so I'm part of the "self-regulating" feature Kim speaks of—time to push back!

My very best to all of my friends here! Peace OUT . . .

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Krispen Hartung <info@krispenhartung.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----

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.

Kris

 

-- 
Miko Biffle
Biffoz@Gmail.com
MBiffle@FoxRacingShox.com
"Running scared from all the usual distractions!"