] [Thread Prev
Re: Lots of fun.
> > it also gives unprecedented power to crappy musicians to
> > put together some pretty impressive stuff.
> yes .. and then again, no. It puts the ability to produce material with a
> professional sound quality within the reach of anyone suitably motivated
> person. But just as an experienced listener can tell the difference
> a good improviser and someone running their scales and modes, some
> experience with electronic music will separate Autechre from Billy
> Just-bought-a-computer and his copy of Rebirth. As it used to say in the
> submission guidelines @ Rephlex: "don't send us a demo if you just got
> equipment 2 months ago .. we can tell."
> > what i can create on the hard drive blows away what i am capable of
> > producing with my fingersand my instrument.
> I certainly know this feeling ;-)
> > That we may place a much greater value on music that is actually
> > for us, as it will allow us firsthand to know if the person, or
> > actually has any musical merit?
> err .. now, what kind of musical merit are we talking about? I'd rather
> listen to a carefully crafted Aphex Twin track, that may have taken weeks
> of work and can't be reporduced live, than yet another generic
> rock/jazz/pop song, no matter how professionally it's played. You can
> the musicians playing from a live gig, but not necessarily their _music_
> you might as well ask them to prove the relative merits of the music
> fist-fight .. now that would be a multi-media experience.
> > Just as a good photographer is (among other things) a person who can
> > recognize which out of a roll of shots is the "good one", someone who
> > up with very compelling music can be considered an interesting
> > regardless of the process used.
> Amen Roger .. I like the cut of your jib, and wish to subscribe to your
> newsletter :-)
> I'm happy (to some degree) that technology has placed a degree of
> separation between musicianship, and the ability to play a conventional
> instrument, if only because it will force people to think about what it
> they want from music and musicians .. and why.
> [Kevin's fictional retro-muso:]
> > 'And you know, I want to go back and learn how to spell chords, so I
> > a Lydian Augmented riff over a dominant #11 chord!'
> '.. and if I try really hard, I can actually get my head all the way up
> own ass ! Oh no! I've travelled back in time, and it's 1972 .. ohhh look
> sorry .. but it was the "technical skill = good music" attitude that
> allowed fusion to disappear to where the sun's not.
> I think us musicians need to realise that music involves an audience, and
> they very often don't care _how_ it's done, they only care what you do.
> it's very best, a player's technique is transparent, and technology has
> facilitated this. Maybe it'll just up the bar for everyone.
> Just $0.02 ..
> I'm off to see Autechre live week after next, so I'll let you know if my
> attitude changes after that :-)
sorry to jump in on this glibly, but didn't eno cover this ground for us
quite a while back (not to mention cage, cowell, et al)? if the tools and
related skills are different, newer, etc. than those the status quo has
acceptable, is it any less musical because of this? i don't think most on
list have difficulties w/ such a notion. as for musical craftsmanship, i
absolutely appreciate it, but only as a means to an end, and if the end
interesting, i don't care how facile the player is...likewise with
just because we can do something is not a reason to do it. witness atomic
funny, i was woodshedding a bit last night, and my office mate from across
hall came in this morning and said it had sounded really good...what i
tell him was that i'd broken a string on my guitar a few days ago and not
bothered to replace it...a whole new world!