Subject: Re: more observances
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jul 18 1999 - 02:04:24 EDT
At 04:51 PM 7/17/99 -0700, naut humon wrote:
>But if some readers
>dismiss the statement as merely "nonsense" without real
>justifications then this is fine.
Nonsense was my word, and here's my justification. In the editorial
business, I see many writers and speakers afflicted with this sort of
"makin' it up". EAM is a field where its practitioners already have trouble
coming to agreement on existing terminology, yet this writer litters his
prose with invented words and phrases connected by specious premises and
gut reactions, and then draws conclusions from it. Such an essay would be
off my desk and back in the author's hands for a total rewrite in minutes.
It's verbal smoke and mirrors.
But clear the smoke & break the mirrors, and the statement is this:
"Anybody can create EAM now -- so many of them that we hear similar
materials, sounds, techniques, and tools. They can even do what *we* do,
and that's scary. So let's dismiss digital control and replicability for a
while, and get back to good ol' experiment & looking for the unexpected --
let's call it "chaosmos" so it sounds new instead of Sixties avant-gardist,
and let's mix up genres so we look populist."
I've seen this sort of self-protective cycle enough times in composition to
be really cynical about it. Do you suggest that judging decisions were
actually made on these comical bases? Re-reading it only made it worse, so
I'm gonna shut up now...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:02 EDT