On 3 Apr 2008, at 6:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Apr 2008 at 13:55, Darcy James Argue wrote:
My generation views songs as analogous to movies, which are released
in a fixed, immutable form. When you watch the late Jules Dassin's
brilliant film _Rififi_ at an repetory cinema, or on DVD, it's the
same movie audiences saw when it was originally released. (Allowing
for digital remastering, etc.)
I think this is a dangerous point of view. When you make the artifact
the work of "art" then you're setting it up as something dead, not
living. Musical performances don't seem to me to be *anything* like a
movie -- a movie is complete in itself in regards to what is on film.
But a recording is anything but complete, in comparison to the live
performance.
This is precisely the attitude that is at the root of the
misunderstanding here.
A modern pop record is not merely artifact of the real art, an
imperfect duplicate of a live performance. The recording is, as you
say, "complete in itself" and, like a film, it is pieced together from
of many different components, recorded at many different times, using
many different techniques, and manipulated in many different ways.
Often, it is not intended to even plausibly imitate the sounds you
might hear in a live performance.
Film is a completely different art than theatre, and making a pop
record is a completely different art than performing live. _Sgt.
Pepper's_ isn't an imperfect replica of songs the Beatles played live
-- it's a studio creation, a work in itself. Very much like a film.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
