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

Re: The Artist's Right To Be Boring (was: Re: the best.... the worst....)

In a message dated 6/20/2007 11:43:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, revfever@ubergadget.com writes:
This and 4.00 will get you a decent cup of coffee at Starbucks. One man's treasure is another man's trash. For my money however, I will take the 900 hours of improv that yield 3-4 CDs of thrak over that cup full of discipline any day of the week. One man's interpretive path of creativity, or successful method of musical construction, is yet another man's whirlpool of lost hope. The problem with most "learned" musicians and engineers is that they have no point of reference to valuate the co-frequency that high level improv in part consists of. If they did, quite simply we would need a whole new dewey decimal system. Don't get me wrong however, logical science is an absolutely necessary polarization with respect to it's counter part, abstract creativity. It's like right & left, night and day, black and white, etc. It takes both for a functional whole to exist. Those lone path discipline fanatics that consider most improv to be in their estimation akin to "musical farts in a windstorm", simply don't "get" the process. Mostly because based on their limited experience, it's beyond them. Bottom line" Structure is no less or more valuable than chaos. Without equal parts of each, music would not exist at all, nor the universe we live in for that matter.     
Good discussion, by somebody with enough experience to recognize
the need for DISCIPLINE (defined as Structure, not Obedience) in 
music, as in everything you actually give a husky fuck about.  Yes,
Virginia (and Stefan), there is FAILURE.  I'm a seasoned expert on
this topic, so you can trust me here.  Yep, the artist must be 
"allowed" to fail, because, whether there is allowance or not, IT'S
GONNA HAPPEN.  Because we're *human*, not gods or muses, even when
we're engaged in allegedly "inspired" activities.  It's a sad fact
that you can't learn from a mistake *until you make it*; it's 
tragic when some "free spirit" doesn't learn from a mistake because
he or she can't admit it was a mistake, or even that mistakes are
possible.  Sure, anything that makes a sound can be *considered* a
musical instrument; every sound can be *heard* as music.  But that
doesn't elevate it to the same level of achievement as the best
music made by people who have real musical ability honed by 
experience in FAILURE.  It's NOT "all good".  Just because something
can be argued to be "legitimate" doesn't make it valuable or worthy.
The great fallacy (and colossal waste of time) of the 20th century
was the obsession with "validity": "Is it art?"  "Is it music?"
Who gives a shit?  Is it worth a damn?  Is it worth the cover?
Sure, it's "valid" as this or that art form on a conceptual basis;
but is it any good at all?  These are questions that *can* be
answered; it just takes a few generations for the clues to
Meanwhile, "non-judgemental thinking" just leads around in circles,
winds up being just another form of mental masturbation.  THERE IS
GOOD.  THERE IS BAD.  *We* won't be the ones to render a final
assessment, but we're sure as hell part of the discussion.  Unless
we attempt to abdicate on some namby-pamby all-inclusive pseudo-
"liberalism", in which case WHY BOTHER?  

See what's free at AOL.com.