] [Thread Prev
Re: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics
--- Ian Petersen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > It's my business how and why I title my
> > CDs, not for you to second guess or impose upon
> I don't want to impose anything on you. Far from it.
> You are of course free to
> name your CDs in any way you see fit. But I - and
> any other listener - must
> surely be entitled to interpret said title in any
> way we see fit based on
> cultural baggage, intelligence or lack thereof.
> > I used the term "live" because the CD was
> "recorded" live at a
> > venue, and for me (not you or any aspect of
> cultural baggage), this
> > has special meaning, such as that it was recorded
> in one take,
> > involved some observation or interaction with the
> audience, and
> > so on.
> Fine. But I only know that because you are able to
> tell me now 'in person', so
> to speak. That explanation is not explicit in the
> work itself - and won't be
> available to the majority of your potential
> listeners - and is thus open to
> > YOU do not define how I choose to the term "live"
> on my CD
> No, but I define how I choose to interpret it.
> > nor does it obligate me to capture audience
> applause at the end of each song.
> No, of course not. That is just one of many
> potential expectations I, as
> listener (with cultural baggage etc.) have on
> reading a title such as "Live at
> ..". Note, there is no value judgement here, just
> the observation that I don't
> necessarily 'get' what you mean by the title without
> your subsequent
> > Each person has a different perspective of what
> the term "live"
> > means for a CD title, [ ... ] You want to
> conveniently use your concept
> > of something for one argument, then not be
> consistent in another
> > matter.
> Sorry, I don't follow you here. My conception of
> both 'live' and 'meditative'
> are primarily subjective but obviously influenced by
> 'cultural baggage' or
> whatever we want to call it. As is yours or anyone
> If you accept that our conceptions are subjective
> how can you, at the same
> time, still imply that your conception is the only
> 'correct' one? No matter how
> many others regard your music as 'meditative'
> doesn't make it objective fact.
> > In the case of this review (Larry), he states that
> the CD has no
> > tangible melody in a matter of fact way, yet
> doesn't quality that
> > this is how he feels or is a result of his unique
> definition of
> > melody
> In the context of what is apparently a mainstream
> popular local 'arts' paper I
> think the definition of melody is likely closer to
> 'something you can whistle
> in the bath' than any other more esoteric
> definition. In that context I'd agree
> with the reviewer that the music has little, if any,
> tangible 'melody'. You
> yourself have posted a link to a page with a couple
> of dozen definitions of
> 'melody'. Lots of possible interpretations there ...
> We seem to be arguing about objective fact contra
> subjective opinion, and who
> gets to define the terms. I am firmly of the opinion
> that no artist can
> reasonably expect to make the 'rules' as to how his
> work is interpreted by his
> audience. The work must stand by itself or not at
> If you feel your work is misinterpreted then its
> your job as artist to make
> sure it doesn't get misinterpreted next time. You do
> that by making better art,
> not by crying 'foul' at the audience.
> Ian Petersen