Re: [microsound] Are all electronic music related writers bad writers?

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

howdy micros:

I think there are several ways to go with the concept of reviewing 
(speaking as someone who once had a music column AGES ago in my 
university paper -- mostly to get back-stage passes with the local 
promoter in Denver)...    :-\

-- reviewing is a process of reducing the energy of a performance 
into a linguistic re-presentation for others to read and presumably 
'get something' of the original performance.

-- the principle behind this is to take evolutionary advantage of the 
experience of an Other in order to optimize Self-survival.  relying 
on Other's eyes and ears so as not to become hopelessly obsolete or 
even lunch meat.  To remain viable in a social system one is forced 
more-or-less to heed this second-hand info as a part of socialization.

-- the best review is "you had to be there"!

-- a better review is made by someone who has the linguistic skill to 
take in the energy of the performance and translate the energy into a 
piece of text -- maybe or maybe not directly relating to the 
performance itself.

-- the worst review lists the equipment (or otherwise frets about the 
materialist situation) or lists the song titles and how much applause 
there was or how the performer was dressed, or makes up possible 
'meaning' of the performance, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum...

-- personally, I have come to 'judge' (and sometimes reduce to text) 
my own enjoyment of a performance simply by noting (by keeping a few 
objective neurons available), noting where my mind drifts to as the 
performance proceeds.  A lousy performance is when I am thinking of 
money troubles or how much my back aches because of the crappy 
seating.  Inspiration is the act of energy entering the body -- 
energising it for whatever activity follows.

-- I know I can spin a decent text 'about' a performance of any kind 
or nature if it inspired me.  to be insipired, I have to remain open 
to the widest possible set of expressions.

-- some people who review things on a regular basis and come to 
attain a "following" of people who like the same things the reviewer 
likes.  this is a process of mass socialization which can be 
detrimental to diversity of tastes (especially when it is on the 
scale of the NYTimes, etc etc...)  in direct opposition to this, I 
believe it is more important to nurture idiosyncracy -- I suggest to 
my students, when I am playing some selections (Andrew MacKenzie's / 
Hafler Trio work comes immediately to mind), I ask them to make their 
own judgement about whether they are inspired by a work. 
Self-confident judgement combined with open-ness is a good starting 
combination to approach art expressions that seem at first difficult.

-- Of course, inspiration can be a tough thing to pinpoint in the 
moment, and might well only come later in time from 'difficult' 
performances.  Other people simply close off the possibility of 
liking something based on preconceived stereotyping, never allowing 
the possibility that a strange form of expression might be a possible 
source of inspiration.

-- a personal motto is "I'll do (listen to, watch, try, etc!) 
anything twice, three times if I like it"  -- just to make sure I 
don't miss something inspiring.

-- reflecting on trusting someone elses judgement, I have experienced 
several moments when attending an event with someone who is 
experienced in a particular genre or form of creation, I have, 
through trusting that individual, come to enjoy and understand the 
work, when as an individual I might not take the time and focused 
intensity to break through an initial dislike.  (doesn't dislike of a 
material typology of expression arise simply from fear of the 
unknown?)

(Happened to watch the Scorcese Bob Dylan film last night -- it was 
interesting to see documented the absolute revulsion and contempt 
that the folk circle -- both musicians, critics, and audiences 
globally -- had for Dylan when he started his "sell-out" 
collaborations with The Band.  Talk about close minded public!  Goes 
the same for the actor Don Adams who died this week -- he was 
lamenting that the strength of his character in Get Smart (i.e., how 
set people became on him in that character) was such that it 
precluded ANY gainful acting after that sitcom went off the air after 
4 seasons.  It was such that the social system did reward him with 
substantial royalties from reruns, but he basically never had other 
acting jobs again...)

So, much of the time, critics 'play' to an audience that they have to 
keep -- imagine a critic in the LA Times who was constantly giving 
impassioned reviews of things that were publicly reviled.  It's a 
contradiction of terms.  So one could conclude that a critic is a 
necessary (though evil;-) function that glues a large social system 
together by ensuring  at least some unified (or shared) values.

Cheers
John


--
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tech-no-mad::hypnostatic:: with a shattered spine on a slow mend
domain: http://neoscenes.net
travelog: http://neoscenes.net/travelog/weblog.php
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org