> Interesting topic. Is it because only small elements/one track out of a > multi-track tune that the message (our invested emotion in the track?) gets > lost in the translation? > Compare/contrast this with turntablists who cut-up records. The whole unit > of the song is there if only for a few seconds. We can recognize the > entire tune based on those few seconds and it means something to us. > Reminds me of the old game show "Name that Tune" where people got down to > minuscule fragments of songs and could name the titles (granted quite a > number were crazy wild guesses). > What Richie does on CE is pulls apart all of our references and then asks > us to have, or whether we have, the same vested interest in those elements. > I can imagine that's why CE doesn't do it for some. > > MEK
I can't speak for anyone else, and sometimes can't even speak for myself, but I don't think it is always possible (or worthwhile) to try and find rules and formulae behind what causes an emotional response. Even if we could, wouldn't that remove the mystery and wonder of it? When it comes to music, which for me is the ultimate emotional trigger (in the same way as smell seems to be my ultimate memory trigger) I can find similarities and emotional connections between two completely disparate pieces of music. I find connections that other people might not *, and I am sure it is the same for them. So when you isolate things, perhaps you risk removing the core of the emotion for some people. Trying to relate this to the turntablism style of mixing and cutting-up... again, there will be people who get enough of a fix on what they are hearing in the same way that there will be people who can't stand it! If everyone thought and felt the same way, life would be dull and homegenous. Diversity is what makes life interesting. Totally lost the thread. B*ll*cks, I am supposed to be working anyway! N * my current half-baked theory is that it is something to do with chord progression but I haven't thought about it too formally.
