] [Thread Prev
You have proven definitively (with the content of your reply to my e-mail
you) that you do not know me. Instead, you have made additional
about me based on no real knowledge about me. This is a pity.
Your argument is that people become lost in, or blinded even, by the
technology discussed on this Loopers-Delight list. So? Perhaps
Loopers-Delight is a place where people gather to learn more about the
capabilities of their technology, and in so doing to extend their musical
capabilities? Perhaps this is a venue for people to learn? Learning is
a problem, is it?
First, I suggest that discussion of looping technology on this looping list
originally created by and associated with a website that is dedicated to
looping and looping technology should not be a surprise to you.
When I go to Russia, it is reasonable to me that I will hear Russian spoken
around me. When I read posts from Loopers-Delight, it is reasonable to me
that I might read about looping technology. I'm not surprised. I may not
understand a lot of what I read here. I may not be as interested in some
topics as I am in others. But I'm not surprised that on an e-list created
by and for looping musicians, who invariably must use technology of some
sort to accomplish their looping, that discussion of technology takes
Indeed, because of this forum, I've been able to suggest and then obtain
capabilities I thought would benefit the looping technology I own. These
capabilities are now part of the feature-set of the latest EDP software.
So, I've used this very unique forum to shape the looping technology to
better suit my musical needs. And I'm grateful to the authors of the EDP
software for including my requests in their product.
Second, I suspect like many here, I read and subscribe to other music
related e-lists. These other lists are based around discussion of other
topics. They each have their own "style" or "flavor" and to varying
contribute to my musical circumstances. I get musical inspiration from
other places than Loopers-Delight. As we all do.
I've been reading this list off and on since 1996. Many topics have
repeated and returned over that time. Some discussions evolve and some
to get stuck. Your premise that the Loopers-Delight email list talks about
technology too much has been discussed here before. It's not important
so far you've not added anything new to the discussion. What is important
is that you've raised it again. But unfortunately, your manner and style
has killed the discussion before it really got started. More's the pity.
Or perhaps you have another goal?
Now, let's discuss your statement:
>> Take what I say as not another opinion but a judgment. I have some
>> historical perspective.
And my reply:
> The thing about perspective is it changes based on where you sit.
> Perspective therefore is not fixed, it is changeable. And if
> change, then judgments that are fixed will become obsolete.
The history of music is filled with examples of situations where judgments
made in one age or culture are cast off as obsolete in another. Let me
offer some examples:
1) Judgments about what is dissonant and using dissonance seem to differ
across cultures and over time. Middle Eastern, Chinese and Western music
have different perspectives on dissonance. But as the world perspective
changes to becomes more of a cultural polyglot, western ears are not
and confused by middle-eastern scales, for example.
2) There was a time when Jazz was judged a cheap, non-enlightened bawdy
of music. Today is it revered as among the most sophisticated and
technically challenging styles of music.
3) There was a time when, from the perspective of the Christian church,
the use of instruments (other than the human voice) was judged so
degenerative and shameful that they were banned. Now Churches pride
themselves on the organs they contain.
4) The judgments made in the 1950's about the first electronic music
broadcasts from WDR in Cologne in early 1950's would never have anticipated
the impact they, and their authors, have made to influence popular music
less than 50 years later.
Unfortunately, your absolutist statements about music, perspective and
judgments along with your blanket statements about individuals on this list
have buried an interesting point you try to raise.
Whatever your intention was, it seems the tone and attitude of your e-mail
appear to have gotten in the way of your ideas. That's also a pity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Cooperman" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
> On Feb 14, 2005, at 5:48 PM, David Kirkdorffer wrote:
> > I have no idea about the context in which these opinions are formed.
> > And
> > prior to reading this, I had no ideas about the person forming these
> > opinions. And, based on what I read here, the writer of these
> > opinions has
> > clearly also demonstrated he does not know me at all, and thus can not
> > speak
> > for me in any way.
> Yes I do know some of what you do because you are on this list. I
> never spoke for you, I spoke against you in the sense that technology
> heads are pretty much fixed against music in its purest form. They are
> stuck with electricity and a manual which takes vital energy away from
> the [purest forms of creativity.
> Yes, I don't know you, you think you may know me but I would venture to
> say that you only know me as a reactive person. You don't know what I
> do nor do any of you except for maybe Tim Mungenast, who I've exchanged
> with. As far as the rest of you guys maybe my horrifying looping
> performance but it takes some talent to be horrifying and I have a
> talent for that.
> You may be Beethoven or highly creative. I don't know. I figure most
> of you are slaves to technology and this is a shame.
> As Bill said and I'll change the last words, "Shame on you technology
> heads." You've maybe lost the meaning of pounding on real things as
> they exist in nature.
> Shame on me, really! I'm not dissing anyone, I'm just calling what I
> see. So shoot me for being honest. It happens all the time. I'm
> happy to be shot, I don't have the kind of ego you think I have, I only
> lose it when my manhood has been in question.
> > As to technology and music - music is clearly influenced by technology.
> > Advances in technology make it possible to construct and fabricate new
> > instruments. This has always been the way since man started making
> > sounds.
> > Stone, wood, metal, silicone, and light. And each new instrument is
> > taken
> > up by players of that age and used to accomplish something a little
> > new and
> > different from others preceding it. The degree that a new instrument
> > is
> > adopted and can give voice to a new compelling musical repertoire, is
> > the
> > degree it becomes a success.
> yes but when it comes to contemporary technology then it is quite a
> different matter than designing a new fingering system for the flute.
> Sometime todays technologies have taken music to a deformed place where
> the chaos of human interaction and the thing being manipulated is not a
> matter of musical talent it is a matter of one's ability to decipher a
> manual and use a program.
> Some techno heads can't make a sound on a real thing and would have
> made wooden shoes in the age of Bronze.
> > This last comment from the post (quoted in full below) I found quite
> > astonishing:
> >> Take what I say as not another opinion but a judgment. I have some
> >> historical perspective.
> > The thing about perspective is it changes based on where you sit.
> > Perspective therefore is not fixed, it is changeable. And if
> > perspectives
> > change, then judgments that are fixed will become obsolete.
> Historical perspective never changes it is only added to. A judgment
> is based on this it is not astonishing. In music perspective is
> everything and a judgment is not an opinion which people can make all
> of the opinions they want about the originality of this or that and it
> turns into baby shit. If they don't have any historical perspective
> than an opinion is a weak thing, like those who voted for Bush.
> Yes I agree but a judgment is something that comes from knowledge and
> perspective. If there is new information perspectives can change but
> it will still form into a judgment and not an opinion. Judgments
> remain fixed if information remains the same.
> Show me something that happened in music that causes a person who has
> perspective to change. Maybe Goreski's 3rd Symphony did a little to
> change my judgment on what modern music can be but I'd venture to say
> that there has been little in the last decade, in pure music, that is
> not comprehensive with what came before.
> This may be a bad thing in a way. It stops thinking out of the box but
> I like the box, so far it has made me happy as a musician. I have
> context and I have direction.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry Cooperman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:45 PM
> >> Hi Tony,
> >> I listened and I found the comp wanting nothing and found the title
> >> quite proper for the sonic result. Very, very good!
> >> I have found that a lot of the people on this mailing list really
> >> don't
> >> understand music.
> >> They understand machines, popular "music," multimedia and other things
> >> wrapped up in technology but music no.
> >> So I would take what everyone says here with a grain or a load of
> >> salt.
> >> A while back I gave a series of compositions to one of these people
> >> and
> >> his brother for their amusement and because the primary function of
> >> the
> >> stuff was music, I heard nothing from them. They don't understand
> >> music as an organic growing thing, they understand it as part of a
> >> social order that they grew up with. This I know because I heard
> >> them.
> >> As good as they are I heard nothing new what-so-ever. So when
> >> confronted with something that they haven't heard before they were
> >> silent.
> >> What I mean to say is that music has a life beyond classifiers like
> >> popular and technology. It is pure expression without the need for
> >> monikers.
> >> We have a lot of highly intelligent people here who are schooled and
> >> well read but treat their music like vestiges of their teenage years
> >> and nothing beyond that. When I say they don't understand music I
> >> mean
> >> it. They have no historical perspective at all and believe me that is
> >> need in the music arts as it is in any other. How the hell do you
> >> know
> >> when you're being a "rebel" if you know nothing about what you're
> >> "rebelling" against.
> >> There are no rebels here. I read these emails from time to time most
> >> of the time I just delete them because of the banal content, people
> >> thinking they're really. really cutting edge and they are just not.
> >> I may get a kick out of something here someday but I attended Y2K4,
> >> did
> >> a really horrible performance myself but I am sure that I made sounds
> >> that I hadn't heard before based on the chaos of all of the crappy
> >> gear
> >> that was meant to represent me.
> >> Is a paint brush gear? Is a vibrating string gear? Gear, gear so
> >> what
> >> if there is no electricity? Technology has made musicians out of
> >> lawyers and bakers? No. At least not in my book.
> >> As well, a person playing in a orchestra is not the same caliber
> >> creator as some of the Loopers. I always thought that being a
> >> musician
> >> had something to do with creation and with some orchestra musicians,
> >> you take the sheet music away and they order a pizza. There was a
> >> time
> >> in classical music when everyone improvised.
> >> Take what I say as not another opinion but a judgment. I have some
> >> historical perspective.
> >> Larry Cooperman
> >> New Millennium Guitar
> >> http://www.newmillguitar.com
> Larry Cooperman
> New Millennium Guitar