|
|
Post by shaggaz on May 29, 2009 20:32:38 GMT 10
Yeah, Notes and Tones is a great read!
|
|
dodgy
Junior Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by dodgy on May 29, 2009 22:59:12 GMT 10
This may make the interview interesting only to other musicians and less to the casual reader, but hey, who cares? Someone has to bite, so it may as well be me. Yeah, who cares if no one else reads Extempore except musos? Who cares if penniless musos are the only ones interested in taking out subscriptions? In fact, who cares if the only people listening to music are musos? Sod the guys who only like the music and can't talk technicalities. In fact, why have audiences at gigs? ... musos can just play with themselves and discuss the finer points afterwards. (Grumble, bitter vetch, grumble etc) Seriously, is Extempore to be an in-house journal for musicians to get all hot and bothered about, or is it supposed to occasionally interest a punter who likes what he/she hears? |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 30, 2009 11:38:03 GMT 10
Both surely. I wasn't suggesting all interviews should take this path. You could look at it the other way too. Why should it be just for the casual reader/listener, why shouldn't there be some technicalities, maybe the punter might learn a thing or 2? It's great how it is, muso 2 muso could only add if there were a couple in there? Diversity, bring it on.
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on May 30, 2009 12:29:07 GMT 10
I agree with Guts in regard to the way internal politics can distort and nullify certain very interesting questions. I do know of one or two wonderful musicians/critics/teachers who openly voice their highly personal,integral AND informed opinions about the music they experience, quite probably at times to the detriment of their relationships with other musicians; and for a musician in a small and tightly knit network, that can impact on one's professional life .
So how about an idea where musicians from different streams and disciplines interview each other, perhaps ? One of the greatest afflictions within the improvised music scene is its apparent separation from everything else - a kind of partially self wrought exile from the recognition, support and structure that other musics have enjoyed for decades - although nearly everyone who works in it , works outside of it as well by necessity!
I used to love it in Downbeat when a Blues or an R and B musician was blindfold tested on a variety of jazz recordings. The responses were always incisive and informative. Maybe then not only the reader would learn something, but the subjects in question may too.
Just an idea -and certainly not a new one....
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on May 30, 2009 20:16:23 GMT 10
... diversity is the go for sure, let's hear about technicalities AND about how music makes you feel... But I'm certain guts would agree there are plenty of musicians who have some knowledge of the theoretical aspects of music but who actually understand very little about Music. I'm often much more interested in what the intelligent non-musician has to say about music; especially the non-musician who is engaged with art in a general sense. It seems to me that at times some musicians (often jazz musicians though, I hasten to add, certainly not Ironguts) are more interested in the means than ideas, in execution than gesture. I notice that my friends who are visual artists often hear right through the means and cut to the nub of what is actually going on in the music. They don't care if someone can execute fast lines or high notes or whatever but they can hear whether the music is happening or not. Shoot me down now if you please. Just my opinion.
|
|
dodgy
Junior Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by dodgy on May 31, 2009 0:53:28 GMT 10
Why should it be just for the casual reader/listener, why shouldn't there be some technicalities, maybe the punter might learn a thing or 2?... Diversity, bring it on. All for diversity and the punter learning a thing or two. I was probably overreacting to the "Hey, who cares if it's less interesting to the casual reader?" remark. Fact is, readers of this journal are probably not your average casual reader anyway, but I would worry if Extempore became too in-house or too technical, because I hope part of its mission is to attract more punters to the music. There would be a danger if that became the main mission ... Rupert Murdoch would take it over, dumb it down and whack it online. But one thing that keeps bugging me at gigs is that such great music and musicians (no s--t!) are playing to relatively few punters. And it seems as though all that is necessary to change that is for enough punters to hear the music enough times to get them hooked. That may be naive, but I'd prefer not to have prospective punters scared away by highly technical discussions. That does not preclude diversity. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 31, 2009 7:48:18 GMT 10
Ah, the old technical vrs artistry debate, it's a tough one. Punter, I'd agree that there are some, often art involved, people that can hear through the means and 'cut to the nub'. I would say those people wouldn't care if someone did or didn't 'execute fast lines or high notes or whatever', it's just not an issue. They would see that the technique IS involved in the expression of the music or not.
The thing we must not forget is that all music is a human construct and therefore technique. Every scale, chord, rhythm or sound comes from an application of a technique so there is no avoiding it at all. There will be differing levels that people need to go to to express themselves of course, but to avoid technical development because it is "intellectual" or too "technical" is naive and missing the point. Hopefully a mature artist will use continued development of technique to increase their ability to express themselves in music.
The actual area of expression itself and how effective/successful it is would surely remain if the technique was limited or exemplary.
Let me ask this, is musical expression a technique? Can it be developed?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 31, 2009 8:20:55 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on May 31, 2009 11:54:07 GMT 10
Ah, the old technical vrs artistry debate, it's a tough one. Punter, I'd agree that there are some, often art involved, people that can hear through the means and 'cut to the nub'. I would say those people wouldn't care if someone did or didn't 'execute fast lines or high notes or whatever', it's just not an issue. They would see that the technique IS involved in the expression of the music or not. The thing we must not forget is that all music is a human construct and therefore technique. Every scale, chord, rhythm or sound comes from an application of a technique so there is no avoiding it at all. There will be differing levels that people need to go to to express themselves of course, but to avoid technical development because it is "intellectual" or too "technical" is naive and missing the point. Hopefully a mature artist will use continued development of technique to increase their ability to express themselves in music. The actual area of expression itself and how effective/successful it is would surely remain if the technique was limited or exemplary. Let me ask this, is musical expression a technique? Can it be developed? Totally agree and well put. The exciting thing here is that we cannot say, we cannot even be sure about whether 'musical expression' even exists at all... The most we can hope for is to arrive at a dialogue. For me, interesting music is music that is 'in dialogue,' that asks questions. Music like this can take all sorts of forms and employ all kinds of techniques some virtuosic and refined, some not. In improvised music I enjoy it when players ask questions: 'is this jazz?' is the challenge Tinkler seems to throw up. In contrast, I get instantly bored when what I'm getting is statements like, 'this is jazz.' This is independent of virtuosity though in the first instance, I also enjoy the virtuosity; the 'skin' of the idea. But if there was no idea happening, no questioning, no dialogue, then this 'skin' would be nothing more than a useless flaccid bag... Am I making sense or rambling??? |
|
|
|
Post by punter on May 31, 2009 12:25:52 GMT 10
A thought about Babbit: perhaps he shows us that modernism can be a seductive cul de sac!? His work is important because it expresses some kind of pure form of the modernist project in music. And, for me, it amounts to depressing nihilism. I'm more interested in composers who try to find their way out of that dead end, without discarding the beauty of modernist language or the energy of the restless curiosity that it embodies. Composers like Cage, Reich and Ligeti... A note on Babbitt's argument in the article: music is not physics just as architecture is not mathematics (or not just mathematics). People inhabit buildings and they 'inhabit' music too. (I might have to come back for an edit here but that's my thought right now. Though it's a damn interesting read guts) |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 31, 2009 12:47:40 GMT 10
Making sense to me. Keep it coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on May 31, 2009 14:18:41 GMT 10
A thought about Babbit: perhaps he shows us that modernism can be a seductive cul de sac!? His work is important because it expresses some kind of pure form of the modernist project in music. And, for me, it amounts to depressing nihilism. I'm more interested in composers who try to find their way out of that dead end, without discarding the beauty of modernist language or the energy of the restless curiosity that it embodies. Composers like Cage, Reich and Ligeti... A note on Babbitt's argument in the article: music is not physics just as architecture is not mathematics (or not just mathematics). People inhabit buildings and they 'inhabit' music too. (I might have to come back for an edit here but that's my thought right now. Though it's a damn interesting read guts) really enjoying this discussion punter, (I haven't been able to work out who you are btw) maybe you should write something for extempore if you haven't already? |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 31, 2009 14:54:47 GMT 10
I think Punter is James Morrison?
|
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on May 31, 2009 15:48:49 GMT 10
I think Punter is James Morrison? ok Guts time for golf for you. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 31, 2009 15:59:00 GMT 10
Is Punter Geoff Ogilvy then? Tiger? Mickelson? Harrington?
|
|
