Re: more observances


Subject: Re: more observances
From: KEVIN AUSTIN (KAUSTIN@vax2.concordia.ca)
Date: Sun Jul 18 1999 - 08:12:59 EDT


Naut Human wrote:

> if you feel that something >has gone terribly wrong here or if somehow
>the Prix Ars music >thing got corrupted in a manner not congruent with
>established >ea/cm protocol you could illustrate further.

It could be that this action is disturbing the natural power order [sic],
and that the young Turks are making (too many) new noises ... without
respecting their betters [sic] .... ooops, elders.

I could, but won't, re-write your statement as:
"If Source magazine has corrupted the musical order in a manner not
congruent with established 'music establishment' protocol, could you
please illustrate further."

(Historical note: Source magazine created much greater revulsion among
'academic musicians' than almost any other change in the 60s and 70s.
It's implications are still being digested 30 years later. Now _that's_
impact!)

> Actually I don't
>subscribe to any music's "fashion" or agenda myself and I
>wasn't particularily aware that ea/cm held some coveted
>criteria for this either.

May I suggest that you turn your inquisitive mind and analytic skills
towards the 'power order' of the ea/cm community. All fields have evolved
'coveted criteria', and they are characterized (IMV) by the use of icons
and symbols ... eg the reference to 'Dylan', or 'Gesang', or 'Number
Nine', or '.....'.

>These areas are useful for describing specific stylizations >and musical
>referencing but how "reverent" are we to be to >these so-called
>'definitions'?

A profound question that surrounds me everywhere. The issue returns to
one of description - prescription - proscription. For centuries, there
has been the firm belief that ony disruption of the sonic order would
lead to the disruption of society as a whole ... dating into China, the
Vedic Hymn tradition, right into Germany in the 1930s, and the Cultural
Revolution (not to mention the basic tenets of Rock.

>Where did everything become so bloody intellectualized?

Likely geneticly several millions of years ago.

>The music should speak for itself as a first impression >regardless of
>source ("it ain't where you're from - its >where you're at!") -- then we
>investigate further the >ideas and theories if compelled to do so.

This, IMV, is a rather limited understanding of how the human mind is
structured. I take from the statement that "as a first impression"
negates the importance of learning and exposure to stimulus for the
evaluation of these stimulii. The concept of "should speak for itself"
suggests an external universal order -- from my reading, the exact
opposite of the argument that you wished to make previously.

In a nutshell: is there a 'natural order', which allows things to 'speak
for themselves', or are these orders created, and therefore have to be
learned? (Ooooooopppsss -- there's that 'academic' thingey poking up it
head again ... )

> My slant along with the other
>three panelists may vary a bit - which will become evident
>in future observations to this list.

I eagerly await.

> But if some readers >dismiss the statement as merely "nonsense" without
>real >justifications then this is fine.

Not fine by me. If they are prepared to call it nonsense, then I'm
prepared to find out what is 'sense'.

> I'm not here to defend- >only to proceed with a community dialogue that
>in the >coming weeks could enlighten (or perhaps bore) those >viewers who
>still might care about competition issues.

Oh ... _that's_ where we came in this time around!

Many thanks.

> ..... soon forward ............. naut humon

Best

Kevin
kaustin@vax2.concordia.ca



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:02 EDT