Re: Great speech video on "Sound"

["Mark Showalter" <folkstone57@operamail.com>]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dustbunnies <mech@m3ch.net>
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: Great speech video on "Sound"
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:57 +0900
> 
> 
> At 11:20 PM +0100 10/24/10, Mark Showalter wrote:
> >
> >>  A related thought:
> >>  At the SC live looping festival last week Singapore musician Randolf
> >>  Arriola reminded us in a discussion about the three aspects that are
> >>  evident in public performance: entertainment value, musical value and
> >>  art value. The understatement in that discussion was that many live
> >>  looping artist focus mainly on music and art factors when putting on 
>a
> >>  show.
> >
> > Do all Live Loopers agree with this statement? Or rather 
>understatement?
> 
> To a great extent.  However, as always, the devil is in the 
> details: define your terminology.

Not sure who you are directing this to & what terminology do you want 
defined?

> 
> We're already hip-deep into another discussion on the definition of 
> Art and its value.  (Not the first, and I'm sure it won't be the 
> last.)

I don't think there's any real discussion of the value of art itself 
unless you mean the relative value of one piece of art to another, or how 
one person values art. As far as the definition of art & having value, art 
is in itself of great value in my opinion. I think the world in general 
would agree with that.
 
> Musical Value may be close enough -- in this case -- to overlap 
> with Art.  The difference may be subtle.  Dunno; gonna have to 
> consider that one....

I would be interested to hear what you come up with.
 
> But keep in mind that Entertainment Value is not an absolute 
> either. 

I don't think anything can really be considered an absolute, especially 
art. But then I don't believe there are ANY absolutes, although I admit to 
saying things like " absolutely insane " and such, but here "absolute" is 
just a word to emphasize "insane".

It is completely relative to the audience.  Compare 
> somebody sitting quietly watching a symphony performance with 
> another individual moshing his brains out at a hardcore show.  Both 
> have vastly different expectations for the performance.  Is one 
> more "entertained" than the other?

Well, if one assumes that both people are listening to the music they 
prefer, then you have to quiz each person. How entertained they are is not 
just a matter of the music they listen to. Plus, we are obviously dealing 
with very subjective experiences so we're into what each would tell us. 
But my original question was: what is art or a definition of what is or 
constitutes art.

>       --m.
> -- _____
> "I want to keep you alive so there is always the possibility of 
> murder... later"

>



Mark Showalter
Minden Jot!

myspace.com/folkstone57
http://www.last.fm/music/Mark+Showalter
<a href="http://www.mylivesignature.com" target="_blank"><img 
src="http://signatures.mylivesignature.com/54488/99/F2BFFC9AD8D6528EA1E10C1043965108.png"
 style="border: 0 !important; background: transparent;"/></a>


-- 
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com