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

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



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