[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
RE: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Petersen [mailto:iep@mail.dk]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:50 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Why I'm starting to loath news paper music critics
Kris,
> Did you read my response?
Yes.
> First of all, who gives a shit if I didn't
> have an audience and spoons dropping in the mix. It is about the music.
>>Out of all the infinite possible titles for the CD you chose "Live at
>the
>>Kulture Klatsch". To me, that indicates that the 'liveness' is
>important.
"To me" is the operative and relative term here . I choose why the term
"live" is important, and I chose so for reasons I shouldn't have to
elaborate here. It's my business how and why I title my CDs, not for you
to second guess or impose upon me.
>>So important as to be the defining element of the title. Obviously, the
music is the important thing on a CD, but it would be naïve to believe it
exists in a vacuum. As soon as you give a CD a title and a cover then you
establish a frame of reference for the music - you 'set the scene', so to
speak. A title such as "Live at ... " has a massive amount of cultural
baggage that, like it or not, creates expectations in the listener that
the CD does not apparently deliver on.
You are making an assumption. 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. YOU do not define how I choose to the term "live" on my CD, and using
the term does not logically imply, nor does it obligate me to capture
audience applause at the end of each song. That is all the explaining I
require to offer here. You have not demonstrated that this imiplication
exists. Or are you saying I should yield to your interpretation as the
objective gospel?
> Second, the comment
> about it not being meditative is way off base...as I have several
> reviewer comments and even gigs that contradict his statement.
>>So what? So different people have different conceptions of what
'meditative' music sounds like. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone
of any musical maturity that the boundaries of a given musical genre are
indistinct and essentially subjective. FWIW, 'Meditative' isn't the first
adjective that springs to my mind either ...
Exactly, then eat your own medicine and apply that logic to the CD title
topic. Each person has a different perspective of what the term "live"
means for a CD title, you and I being the first and most obvious
conflicting cases here. You want to conveniently use your concept of
something for one argument, then not be consistent in another matter. What
game board are you playing on now?
> Third, he clearly thought negatively of the fact that my percussionist
> used ethinc instruments but we weren't playing ethnic music
>>That interpretation certainly isn't clear to me. I suppose you mean his
comment that "despite the use of ethnic instruments, there are no earth
rhythms". I understand that comment to be about the lack of
'psuedo-ethnic' musical clichés in your music. In other words - a
compliment!
If you knew the reviewer, you might not make this assumption. Either
assumption, that it is negative or positive, is not clear, agreed; though
I believe I have the lead here since I know who this reviewer is, his
reputation, and have collaboration from other musicians in the area.
>> When you send a CD - or any creative work - out into 'the wild' you
>have
to accept that it will have to fend for itself on its own terms. You
can't sit down beside every single listener and instruct them on the
'correct' way to listen to your music. There is always going to be as
many interpretations (or misinterpretations if you will) of your work as
there are people who hear your music. Isn't that part of the pleasure of
making and listening to music: The fantastic range of emotions and
interpretations a single piece of music can embody in different people?
Again, eat your own medicine, sir. If there are so many interpretations,
then why are you complaining about the term "live" in the title?
Obviously, people have a right to their own interpretations. This is not
about that, but about making comments that correspond to fact, vs.
qualifying subjective and emotive statements.
>> Again, the review gave me an idea of what sort of music to expect.
And without ever listening to the CD, you may have thought that it had no
tangible melody, and that it had no meditative or spiritual fare. And that
is where your argument fails.
>> On listening to the actual music I found those expectations to be
>largely
fulfilled. That, to me, is a good review! Now that probably makes me a
cretin and musical ignoramous in your eyes, but perhaps you should
consider the possibility that your music isn't actually communicating
what you think it's communicating ...
I music evaluation, when the critic is not conveying objective facts, they
may be expressing how they feel about a piece of music. 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...yet another reviewer of that
CD says:
"Love what you are doing here, its fidgety, tense and dramatically melodic
at points. The sound is very precise as well, never meandering into a bad
place. Good stuff, drt"
Larry says that the music does not have spiritual or meditative far, again
in a matter of fact manner, yet yoga instructors and people who practice
yoga and meditation have bought this CD exactly for this purpose.
So which is it? Are we taking about objective facts or the way people feel
about a piece of music or CD? Do you get it now? Or will you assume that
critic himself is immune from having to clarify his thoughts and feelings
about music vs. stating facts.
Your argument has been quite un-convincing too me and seemingly flawed
based on the counter-examples I have provided.
Good day.
Kris
--
Ian Petersen