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

Re: [microsound] the fetishist - WAS Re: [microsound] nuno cannavaro

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Maremont" <thermal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject: [microsound] the fetishist - WAS Re: [microsound] nuno cannavaro

> And then the fetish role in music will
> pass to another object.

it seems to me that all music is fetishism as you describe it. jazz or
improvisatory musicians fetishize their instruments and stylistic playing,
rock bands fetishize their styles, etc. eg: certain formal elements that
"stylize" the sound; common melodies/hooks; trends in music.

saying this as you put it: formalities and common techniques in all styles
of music tend to reduce creativity and "derail" the desire of the music for
another purpose.

but i ask, what purpose is that? you write fetish as if it's a horrible
thing! perhaps there's another side to it. fetishizing an art form is simply
taking creative expression to the extreme in one direction. with the
creation of extreme nuance and subtlety, perhaps music can truly hone itself
to perfection. the fact that every jazz player is playing the same stylistic
licks is actually a good thing because it allows a jazz fan a "foundation"
of listening with which to compare the music, a context and quality. this
leads to finer and finer forms and styles and hones an artist to perfection.
or a better example-- traditional indian raga is played by all musicians for
the purpose of creating order and thematic improvisations, and it is
arguably one of the finest forms of music there is.

maybe it's also a good thing because it builds boundaries that are later
pushed, eg: experimentalism in pop music. ;)