Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place


Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
From: Morgan Sutherland (skiptracer@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 13:22:27 EDT


i thought that Draft 7.30 (autechre) was lightyears ahead of their
earlier stuff. it was their first album where i was thinking "how did
they get that sound", and i thought the use of amplitude modulation
was amazing, like on track 2 for instance. Untilted, that's a
different story.

On 9/15/05, Michael Gogins <gogins@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Judgment is an inherent function of the mind. To think is to judge. To feel is to judge. To say "one shouldn't judge" is to judge. To say "the question of judgment -- I pay that no mind, it's not important" is to judge. One judges either well, or ill.
>
> I suppose one could be completely silent, then one would make no judgments. Rather like being dead, or absent from all discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "miriam clinton (iriXx)" <iriXx@iriXx.org>
> Sent: Sep 15, 2005 9:41 AM
> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
>
> Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>
> >>I don't think it's a stable concept. There is a disjuncture between
> >>innovativeness (sorry) as individually perceived, and as a structure in
> >>wider discourse. Individual perceptions of what may or may not sound
> >>innovative are mediated not only by the individual's experience up to
> >>the instance of perception, but also by a whole bunch of contextual
> >>variables we may apply to what we hear - so we may judge innovation in
> >>terms relative to a genre we associate the music with, and also within a
> >>historical context ('innovative for its time'). In any case, I'm still
> >>not sure that it has any bearing on whether one is engaged by the
> >>experience or not.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I find that it's a good thing when judgments are not so concrete. It
> >gives us things to talk about and things to think about. If there was
> >some general rule by which we could rate music, it would be quite
> >boring. Judging music by innovation is just another way of judging,
> >just like all of the other methods. Some other methods of judging?
> >"Coolness", ability to make you dance, ability to make you cry. And
> >yes, there are people who devote their music listening to rating music
> >based on those criteria, just as unstable as "innovativeness".
> >
> >
>
> why do we need to judge?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 99% of aliens prefer Earth
> --Eminem
>
> www.iriXx.org
> www.copyleftmedia.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:11 EST