Re: [microsound] Further (rambling) thoughts on Mutek, 2nd night (30/05)

[Guillaume Grenier <gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I originally replied directly to tobias because his message was sent only to
me in error. I post my response for the sake of continuity, list-wise, if
there are people who care... Tobias has since replied to me directly in a
message destined to (momentarily?) close this thread.



On 02/06/02 19:58, tobias v said in living color:

> -- the piece I quoted was the Handel, which was oddly enough the
> piece you could not remember. I do find it fascinating. No death
> threats, just interpretative curiousity. I question your review
> as you apply specific classical paradigms to this music,

Are you still talking about the Handel piece or the globality of the night?

About the Handel (last) piece, I said:

"I remember thinking that the tones and the way in which
they were linked (actually, they weren't and that's the problem -- it was
more an indifferent series) seemed "careless". I also felt it suffered from
a lack of direction, as with the choral piece before."

Doesn't seem much like classical paradigms to me. The analysis is a bit
weak, though, as I did not remember much of the piece, as we both know... Or
perhaps I'm not grasping your point correctly...

> specifically
> loop-based music,

Regarding loop-based music, I said:

"Well, it's not that I refuse the approach per se, but I often find myself
thinking that the technique was used out of laziness, lack of ideas or
inadequate mastery of the instruments used. It fills the void of silence and
keeps people happy while requiring only a small expense of effort."

Again, it doesn't seem to me that this is applying classical paradigms to
another form. But maybe I'm missing something.

> and simply pass judgements based upon a codified
> set of rules which are extremely genre-specific. Not to mention that you are
> doing exactly what I criticise as a euro-centric high art stance in the
> missive I sent the list as mutek 3/4...

I don't want to bother you but maybe if you quoted a specific passage of my
original message and commented directly on it, I'd understand more clearly
what you mean.

> However, I do appreciate
> the detail and humour you add to your excellent description of the music
> involved, but deeply feel that you *will* never appreciate loop-based
> music if you continue to paint yourself into the box--which is conveniantly
> hoisted upon a pedestal--you have placed yourself into.

I like a *lot* of loop-based music. :)

I do listen to a lot of electronic music, so it's pretty inevitable. :)
I also like several works pertaining to early instrumental minimalism, which
is pretty loop-heavy.

> Overall I agree. Janek Schaefer was incredible. But the others perhaps
> need different coda to appreciate their value. I can see the
> differentiations you are making, but feel that they need to be rotated at
> degrees to speculate upon their respective inertias and speeds. See what I
> mean?
> 
> - t
> 
> p.s. Apologies for my recent chatter to this list --
> & it was wonderful meeting many of you @ Mutek.
> One more night ...

Thanks for your additional words. I think we're slowly but surely tuning
more clearly on each other's minds.

BTW, this message was only sent to me. I'm saying that because it seems that
you wanted to direct it to the list too...

g.

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west



g.

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west