Re: [microsound] Re: the tool has become the message

[craquemattic <craque@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a close symbiosis between tool and creator. People may use  
the same tools as others in order to "sound" like the others, or they  
may use whatever tools they have at their disposal. I believe most  
interesting music comes from people who put their musicality before  
their virtuosity, allowing the music to take precedence over the  
technique.

I'm curious about the extent to which tools define the course of  
sonic exploration. There is the attention of the improvisor to his  
tools, in combination with awareness of the total sound. A lot of  
times - especially with free improvisors - the tools are the primary  
course of expression, and mean everything to the music at hand. But  
the thing that draws you in is the artist speaking through the tools.

On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Renick Bell wrote:

> > I agree, that often people are more interested with 'the sound' of
> > their music than basic, down-to-earth songwriting and composition.  
> > You
> > can add all the bells and whistles that you'd like, but without a
> > solid framework, it's just a bunch of fluff.
>
> Oh... I don't mean to say that some compositional concept is more  
> important
> than the sound. In fact, I think (off this topic) that the surface  
> of the work
> is often more important than the concept underlying the piece.



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