[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: kingcrimson in sf-no loop content...

On the subject of naming stuff (Frippertronics, Belewps etc), isn't it 
just about things being memorable? Perhaps, market
driven, perhaps an affectation, or sinisterly perhaps an attempt to claim 
credit for things as yet unlabeled (x-ref the
entire history of the British Empire). I think that there's something 
within contemporary western culture that drives us to
label stuff (maybe it's an innate human trait, but I'm nowhere near 
detatched enough from my cultural context to make such a
judgement) - I spent a long time trying to encapsulate what I do in a 
pithy way, and came up with AmbiEntertainment - partly
cos it does seem to describe the tension inherent in my gigs between being 
a performance and me not really minding being part
of a general sonic environment, but also just cos it's a cute word, that 
I've not heard anyone else use before (though I very
much doubt that such an obvious link is completely original...) - there's 
an element of affectation in there, and some
silliness, but also the desire in all of us to stand out in some way, 
which nicely brings me onto what SPG said...

> >In any event I was looking for something that *I* could get my own 
> >sound out of, as opposed to attempting to replicate the work of either
> >Fripp or Eno.
> >I threw out or erased more material I'd composed just because
> >it sounded like someone else's stuff

Is it more important to be 'original' or be 'good'? We all love the notion 
that we could be innovators. Some of us (DT being
a bright shining beacon of innovation in our midst) are, but most of us 
are ostensibly assimilators (I think that perhaps
every musical intention is innovative in someway, though maybe there is 
such a thing as negative innovation?). Is that a bad
thing? Is Fripp any less influential in either real or theoretical terms 
because he was taking that which was being caried
out largely in academia and then regurgitating it in a pop context (or 
even that which was being used in a fringe pop way,
and making it a little more mainstream)? I'm a firm believer in credit 
where it's due, so it would be nice if peope perceived
as innovators were a little more vocal in crediting sources. On a small 
scale, I'm fairly quick to point out to people who
have had no other introduction to looping, e-bow, solo bass or whatever 
else I might be dabbling in at the time that I'm not
the only person in the world using those things, and that what I do is a 
mish-mash of influences, some of whom loop, and some
of whom I then list (Frisell, Manthing, Levin, Jonatha Brooke, Spearhead, 
Lewis Taylor, Don Ross, Stevie Wonder, Paul Hinklin

I think I'd struggle to not at least sound partly like me... being me 
tends to get in the way of not sounding like me. Myopia
about one artist can sometimes lead to clone mode, but if one's desire is 
to create music of substance rather than pastiche,
are obvious influences a bad thing? At the moment I'm fortunate that my 
biggest influence (Frisell) plays a different
instrument it me, and uses a whole different bunch of gear, so his 
reflection in my music is perhaps less obvious that it
would be if I played a Klein, and anyway the things that took him to where 
he is, and the influences that shape me are going
to be way different. Is Frisell a closet Kajagoogoo obsessive, does he dig 
the Spice Girls and Pantera? He certainly didn't
spend two or three years touring round Europe with a second-rate Canadian 
singer-songwriter, and I've never played with
Zorn... So I'm not going to worry about his influence blocking my 
individuality, or overtaking whatever else is going on in
my own musical journey. In fact, it becomes a clarifying lense, as in 
exploring some of the compositional, improvisational
and performance models that I've encountered in his work, I've obviously 
be drawn down other routes that work better within
my skill set, sonic paradigm and gear-pile...

So is it more important to be original than good? obviously a combination 
is preferable, but if one is choosing aims and
goals, are either valid? Or is self-expression at any cost the goal? or is 
it, like the rest of life, driven by the pursuit
of meaning, which seems to have morphed somewhere in the last few years 
into the pursuit of novelty... Right I'm off before I
start quoting Michael Franti, high priest of all things good in the 
world... :o)

Thoughts, clarifications, rebuttles and general musings on any or all of 
the above greatly appreciated - I'm still fumbling
my way through alot of these questions...

big love to all