Subject: "sh"ould/"c"ould - wood.
From: Stephen Rieck (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 24 1999 - 18:02:21 EDT
Thanks for your response to my post, Kevin, but I think you realize that
knowing where you are at and being there, are two different conditions.
You agreed that categories lack specificity, then allude to particular
information within them that might have particular utility? You are
obviously a great teacher of EA (and no small devil's advocate!), but no
matter what the details addressed in an EA/techno argument, nobody is
likely to experience revelationary or revolutionary insight and change
their work with sound as a result. Categories (along with all "-isms")
simply obfuscate the truth about music, which is that it cannot be
completely objectified (as with the living of life, which imo is much
the same thing). This thread is useful to the extent that it has opened
me to new input, but frankly, so far, you are bandying about words about
words. Please tell me how this thread might enhance my work with sound?
What specific benefit will I realize in my life, from all this?
The only good reason to talk about music at all, is education; so
please, I would appreciate a comprehensive, precise and accurate
definition of the words "electroacoustic", "techno", or even "music"?
Might it demonstrate that I have attained some desired level of wisdom
from this thread, if I consider these words, subsequently unsubcribe,
keep my ears open, brain on, and mouth shut? Of course not, but what
afterall, does all this come to? I would and could (and probably should)
greatly appreciate it, if someone articulated a conclusion, an outcome,
a result for me that is useful in my work.
- Stephen Rieck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:01 EDT