I think my addition to this debate is running dry .. and I'm not entirely
prepared to take beats from the big kids any more .. but I wanted
to comment back on a few things ..
I agree with your comments of quality. I don't think we have heard an artist
who is able to work with true finesse in surround.
i feel like doing something in that kind of space ends up becoming a
technological challenge moreso than a musical/artistic challenge,
which is why we havent seen an artist who really works well in it.
thats why i think it will be highly unlikely to find someone who works
in a manner in which surround is *the* way to experience their work.
I like how you have put the hand brake on here .. and begun to define the
parameters for which an artist should/could create new music.
Again .. I am trying to open doors and suggest new ways to make music,
to extend its possibilities.
a good deejay has little ego, the music flows through them. bands and
live performers in general are largely outside of my preferred method
of consuming music strictly because of the presentation. but a good
deejay has a selection of records to choose from and they can
manipulate and/or follow the mood in the room with them. how can that
possibly be improved? why reinvent the wheel?
Why should Dj's replace bands? What was wrong with classical music?
Thinking that the Dj is the ultimate solution to the performance paradigm is
getting pretty narrow.
You seem to be clamping down firmly again on your view of reality being
the only right and correct way for things to happen.
music is not new. it was the same thing at the dawn of humanity as it
is now. there is no new music. there is artistic expression, and there
is sound.
There is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new under the sun.
I'm just not buying it. I have suggested several ways to do things differently
and because they are not fitting into your description of what "IS" then
they become impossible, irrelevant or simply dismissed.
Have you been given this understanding or is this the way music "IS"
without the artistic expression, it is sound. sound is not music.
i just dont see it. some things are necessary, an artist is necessary
for music. if you leave it up to sensors taking readings of a crowd or
whatever, you may as well just automate a computer program to write
melodies and rhythms: it will all be soulless nonsense. im sure there
is a crowd for that, though!
I have not mentioned sensors or computer once .. or any form of automation.
What if an artist set up the sensor? How do you start to differentiate between
where the composition of music starts and finishes?
The reaction to my ideas seem to be indignation and fear. I have merely made
suggestions to ideas about the ways music could be stimulated in different
setting
to perhaps create new forms of music.
These ideas are in response to the question "have we run out of music?"
I just can't agree with the limitations you place on what music is and how it
should exist. While I can see that you are attempting to protect the artist and
the structures that currently exist for music. I think its worth challenging
these
structures in order to stimulate new ideas.
I still think its reasonable to consider music existing in completely different
ways
to what we now know as normal.
.simon
