Re: (313) re: something to think about
-- Original Message -- From: Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] What a load of crap. Actually doing something new and interesting is not the same thing as just saying you are going to. And lots of people who really do original interesting work might not be doing it just to be new or whatever, they are just expressing their individuality and their unique take or art, music, whatever. Brian just sounds like an out of touch bored whinger. Who needs it. he sounds like someone who might understand why music sucks now. tom andythepooh.com
Re: (313) re: something to think about
-- Original Message -- From: Dennis DeSantis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think Eno's point was just that new does not NECESSITATE interesting - that is, he's suggesting that simply creating original work does not automatically assure that it is work of value/quality. for reference see the numerous threads on LD featuring me vs art records going toe to toe ;) tom andythepooh.com
Re: (313) re: something to think about
understand why music sucks now. Hilarious. I should mention, I heard music sucked yesterday, and I heard from an even better source music will suck tomorrow, and possibly even the next day.
RE: (313) re: something to think about
I don't know, I think eno has a point. Originality should be a consequence of an honest expression. Not a technical acheivement. And I think originality can be achieved by building on already explored territories. When the goal to be different eclipses the goal to be yourself (meaning technical over expression), then you move more into science than art. Music is best when a balance between the science and art is achieved. But I feel the same for the other extreme as well. Folks making arty shxt for the sake of art, while leaving the science behind the music out of the process is usually ineffective and self indulgent as well. Eno's on the money yall. Stop hatin' (not you dennis, I just replied to your message). Kamal K. Stoddard Turner Broadcasting Systems ** I am exactly what I wanted to become since I was 5 years old. Since 5 year olds are not noted for mature judgement and sometimes aspire to piracy or gunfighting, this is not necessarily a sign of success. ** -Original Message- From: Dennis DeSantis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:29 PM To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) re: something to think about I think Eno's point was just that new does not NECESSITATE interesting - that is, he's suggesting that simply creating original work does not automatically assure that it is work of value/quality. -- Dennis DeSantis www.dennisdesantis.com Philip wrote: What a load of crap. Actually doing something new and interesting is not the same thing as just saying you are going to. And lots of people who really do original interesting work might not be doing it just to be new or whatever, they are just expressing their individuality and their unique take or art, music, whatever. Brian just sounds like an out of touch bored whinger. Who needs it. ENO: They're overvalued really. Or, I should say that they're valued to the point where they become a target for people to aim at and that's a self-defeating proposal. It's like calling someone up and saying, Look, next Friday we're going to get together and have a really interesting conversation. Really brilliant now, we're going to think some really new things! Then you call a few days later and say, Don't forget Friday, this conversation is going to be really interesting. You build this up and by the time Friday comes of course you're tongue tied because you daren't say anything that's clumsy or familiar. You daren't do any of the things that are likely to open you up into a new area. New ideas are nearly always slight shifts of things that are already very familiar to you.
Re: (313) re: something to think about
Stoddard, Kamal wrote: I don't know, I think eno has a point. Originality should be a consequence of an honest expression. Not a technical acheivement. And I think originality can be achieved by building on already explored territories. When the goal to be different eclipses the goal to be yourself (meaning technical over expression), then you move more into science than art. Music is best when a balance between the science and art is achieved. But I feel the same for the other extreme as well. Folks making arty shxt for the sake of art, while leaving the science behind the music out of the process is usually ineffective and self indulgent as well. Eno's on the money yall. Stop hatin' (not you dennis, I just replied to your message). that's a good view of it kamal. so Tom this applies to that ableton live discussion you had with 'art records' on LD that you mentioned in a previous post too. robin...
Re: (313) re: something to think about
Can someone point me directly to that LD thread please? MEK robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ctric.com To Stoddard, Kamal 01/24/05 10:03 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc 313@hyperreal.org Subject Re: (313) re: something to think about Stoddard, Kamal wrote: I don't know, I think eno has a point. Originality should be a consequence of an honest expression. Not a technical acheivement. And I think originality can be achieved by building on already explored territories. When the goal to be different eclipses the goal to be yourself (meaning technical over expression), then you move more into science than art. Music is best when a balance between the science and art is achieved. But I feel the same for the other extreme as well. Folks making arty shxt for the sake of art, while leaving the science behind the music out of the process is usually ineffective and self indulgent as well. Eno's on the money yall. Stop hatin' (not you dennis, I just replied to your message). that's a good view of it kamal. so Tom this applies to that ableton live discussion you had with 'art records' on LD that you mentioned in a previous post too. robin...
RE: (313) re: something to think about
It's a bit of an epic thread, but the Ableton part of the discussion gets going here: http://www.littledetroit.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7091postorder=ascstart=137 Brendan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 January 2005 16:19 To: robin Cc: 313@hyperreal.org; Stoddard, Kamal Subject: Re: (313) re: something to think about Can someone point me directly to that LD thread please? MEK
RE: (313) re: something to think about
-Original Message- From: Philip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2005 22:21 What a load of crap. Actually doing something new and interesting is not the same thing as just saying you are going to. And lots of people who really do original interesting work might not be doing it just to be new or whatever, they are just expressing their individuality and their unique take or art, music, whatever. Brian just sounds like an out of touch bored whinger. Who needs it. Actually he sounded like he was making a fair point to me. Didn't strike me that he was being especially whingey in what he was saying either. I'm not as up on commentary on techno, music or art in general as many people on this list but generally when I've read something Eno has said or written I've found it interesting and worth considering. Maybe it depends what you set as a standard for original interesting work - are there lots of people doing this?
Re: (313) re: something to think about
I think Eno's point was just that new does not NECESSITATE interesting - that is, he's suggesting that simply creating original work does not automatically assure that it is work of value/quality. -- Dennis DeSantis www.dennisdesantis.com Philip wrote: What a load of crap. Actually doing something new and interesting is not the same thing as just saying you are going to. And lots of people who really do original interesting work might not be doing it just to be new or whatever, they are just expressing their individuality and their unique take or art, music, whatever. Brian just sounds like an out of touch bored whinger. Who needs it. ENO: They're overvalued really. Or, I should say that they're valued to the point where they become a target for people to aim at and that's a self-defeating proposal. It's like calling someone up and saying, Look, next Friday we're going to get together and have a really interesting conversation. Really brilliant now, we're going to think some really new things! Then you call a few days later and say, Don't forget Friday, this conversation is going to be really interesting. You build this up and by the time Friday comes of course you're tongue tied because you daren't say anything that's clumsy or familiar. You daren't do any of the things that are likely to open you up into a new area. New ideas are nearly always slight shifts of things that are already very familiar to you.
