[ Post a Response | Music Theory Forum ]
Posted by Caleb response by Caleb Morgan, composer. (on Tuesday morning, 10/17/06 9 a.m. to around 10:30.) Matt, I enjoyed reading what you wrote. Among other things, your taste is a blend of things I understand and things I don't understand. I *do* understand the kick of words, words, words. But I think "post-modern" writing is often just incomprehensible. In my opinion, the best writing makes sense on a number of levels. Here, your writing makes sense when viewed from a moderate distance, but not if read too closely or critically. You could change this if you want to. I suspect you don't want to, so I won't press the issue. 1.) I'm in agreement in some ways on matters of taste: Allan Holdsworth *does* have a great left hand, great vibrato, great sound. Very individual. 2) Schopenhauer *is* fun to read. Leads backward to Kant, Locke, Plato. Leads forward to Nietzsche (and Wagner) and Wittgenstein. 3) I'm in sympathy with the general sentiment: The world is more and more dominated by machines and machine-like processes and systems. This is not a good thing. (Of course, having a mildly Asperger-Syndrome personal style, I *love* numbers, computers, and formal systems. And I've worked very closely with synthesizers for a long time. But I *DON'T* love the way synthesizers sound. It's easier to understand what you're saying if one reads impressionistically rather than with close attention to detail. This piece reminds me a little of those pictures with large pixels that are more intelligible if viewed from a distance or if the viewer blurs her vision a little. Up too close, you see only pixels. What I mean is: If I read critically, I'm not really sure what the quotes have to do with the theme of your own text: a variety of ways in which computers and synthesizers are dead, mechanical, cold, un-nuanced, predictable, etc. As a criticism: It seems--on my first 3 passes with what you've written--that you somewhat jumble up what are (sort of) separate issues. Allow me to list separate issues as I see them: 1) nuances of tone not well expressed with synths. 2) recorded or sequenced pieces are fixed, always the same, not different from performance to performance. 3) programmed drum-beats and other sequences are not typically very expressive of good "gestures" or human physicality. Don't necessarily groove or swing like real drummers should. 4) computer procedures are replacing human practices (such as tax-preparation, and more!) 5) print or text doesn't capture the direct quality of music. 6) somehow all of the above and more are linked in a general trend toward conformity, predictability, lack of spontaneity, lack of expressiveness. it's all somehow part of the general replacement of the human with the machine. some counter-examples: 1) techno and rap are highly communal, sexy, Dionysian musics. Why do kids get such a buzz from them? 2) somehow, the *piano* is a mechanical instrument with no direct control over tone. Yet listen to Glenn Gould or Keith Jarrett, and you hear an incredibly individual "tone". How is this possible? 3) I've spent the last 15 years or so reading Nietzsche daily, and also reading all the secondary commentaries on him that I can find. And I'm *still* not sure if I understand him well enough to quote him extensively. What makes you so sure that you understand what Schopenhauer was saying? Is it important to understand? If not, why quote him? Schopenhauer seemed to be a kind of pessimist who believed that the only respite from the struggle of the individual will in indifferent nature was a sort of Buddha-like (or ascetic) suspension of the will--either permanently--as in the mystic--or in moments of aesthetic contemplation. He thought that our appreciation of art is essentially I do wonder what Schopenhauer would have thought of Holdsworth. Schopenhauer as philosopher disapproved of opera, but personally loved opera. Loved it! What do you make of a philosopher who is divided against his own taste? Just some thoughts. --Caleb
on 10/18/2006, 10:46 am, in reply to "Matthew Z's article"
71.125.112.239
Response to Matt Z: Ont Myst vs. Mach Language
joke: and the arch-fiend is: Ray Kurzweil. He's the Dark Lord! The uber-robot. The Millennium Man. Plus his synths aren't as good as they ought to be.
"disinterested"--that is, not sexual, not even passionate.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread