Re: [microsound] folk-music instrument

["mat.the.w" <craque@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is like what I was getting at a few days ago when I asked someone if
they could tell the difference between academic and non-academic music. I
think it's silly to claim there remains a difference.

The same goes for the very old-fashioned and musicological notion of 'folk'
versus 'art' music. Downtown/Uptown. East/West. Detroit/Münich. The folds
these days are so extremely blurred, it's difficult to approach them without
falling deeper in the other direction.

But I think these terms to some are more like a flag to rally behind rather
than a description of what the art is. I mean, the word 'punk' itself is
probably one of the most heavily loaded social terms out there, especially
if you consider its influences and predecesors in addition to its artists,
both musical and visual. One reason I try to stay away from it (the word),
because so much of what I hear, none of which I would call punk, different
groups of people call punk, but without a lot of agreement or overlap.

I believe the laptop is more of a tool than a means to an end. I don't use
one when I record live music, but my live music most certainly would be
considered electronic/electronica/electro-acoustic. A lot of people do this.

With this view, it's really not as relevant what the instrument (or media)
is in folk, which makes it such a wonderfully broad and expansive body of
music and art.

On 2/11/06 5:08 AM, "mhwrpc@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mhwrpc@xxxxxxxxxxx> scribed:

> What's the difference between that and our perception of the folk artist?  For
> me, terms like folk and punk have long been cultural/social tags that have
> very little to do with the actual sound of recordings or performances.  Then
> you have Henry Flynt.....



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