From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V2 #209 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Wednesday, October 8 1997 Volume 02 : Number 209 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation [dalexander@juno.com (Dennis S. Alex] Alloy: I live in a suitcase ["Stephen M. Tilson" ] Alloy: Of suitcases, coffee shops, and windpower... [Paul Baily ] Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation [Tim Dunn <113203.2623@compuserve.co] Alloy: Message from Ian ["Stephen M. Tilson" ] Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation [Frank ] Re: Alloy: Of suitcases, coffee shops, and windpower... [Frank ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:25:05 -0600 From: dalexander@juno.com (Dennis S. Alexander) Subject: Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation I must agree with Sam on this. In my opinion, music and lyric is simply the creation of an artist by means of the 'gifts' with which he/she is endowed. The result is an expression of the artists own soul, emotions, spirit, experience. And the result will always be reinterpreted differently by everyone who hears (or sees; experiences) it. I must also agree with the_copse, although his essay was a bit wordy; no offense. - ----- Hey, I'm back, by the way. Don't know how much I can participate in the discussions as my life has been turned up side down in the last few months. Thanks to electrix, I now am here instead of feeling abandoned at the old pub, since it was wiped clean off the map! JAMac ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:04:22 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: I live in a suitcase Copse, > with that enormous build-up it really blows me away. I quite agree, the bridge to _Suitcase_ is one of the more stunning = things TMDR has offered up. I wish he was inspired to work on a new = collection of recordings, but am resigned to be satisfied with the = wonderful jewels already in existence, if need be. /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:57:10 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Lissu's B-day offering Though it's late --- a quick note. I got a copy of Lissu's rendition of Pulp Culture today (as = backup in case she missed Ian's deadline). Very very cool! If = this is what Lissu sounds like with bronchitis . . . = Great job, Louise! G'night, /\/\iles P.S. Do you have access to an ADAT machine, Lissu? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:43:55 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation YES!!!!...THAT's THE SPIRIT!!!! Sam, I welcome your disagreement. Certainly a bold refuting statement full of vitality. One that keeps me on my toes...and prevents me from expressing my ideas haphazardly knowing that some of you out are thinking. Sam Rauch wrote: > > I've read and reread this post, and the more I read, the more I disagree. > First of all, I think that electrix's philosophy on the creation of art as > being an animate entity unto itself is flawed. An artist creates a work and > it is their own. It is then presented to us for our enjoyment and/or > interpretation. I think it's that simple. Sam, an artist RECEIVES the music. He is a receptacle to harmony, sounds, music. This is more apparent if a person is a composer/musicians. Having written music and improvised on my instrument, I can honestly say that the sound comes from the beyond. I can also force music into existence by shuffling notes and rhythm...but they are less meaningful to me. I am also of the opinion that a perfectionist spends less time listening to the inner-self and blocking the reception. > If it is in fact so beautiful in > your interpretation, that it moves you physically, emotionally and stimulates > your imagination, then in your opinion it's very good. However, it still is, > and always will be the artist's creation. In a world where posession is a necessary part of ego gratification, I agree with your comment. But when inspiration strikes and music flows out of a composer, at that moment, at that single moment where he/she is groping to keep the music flowing... is it the artist's creation? I would like to know if there is an artist in the crowd who can identify where this single musical source is coming from. The Brain? The Mind? Where? > > Music is for feeling AND thinking in my books. Depending on the authors > > intent. By thinking I mean --- an artistic view is presented so as to be > > reflected upon. > > So is there supposed to be a time when we mortals are "cued" into whether or > not the author would like us to go deeper and root out the inner meaning of > their creation? Are we supposed to pick up on this when we "detect" the > author's intent? And when shall this detection take place? Would a footnote > in the liner notes suffice? There is no cuing. If the author has done his job, the music resonates with the listening individual. The individual incorporates his experience with the music. The listener interprets it the way he chooses to perceive it. Thus, it is possible to get message the artist didn't originally intend. However, the artist sometimes is even more surprise that his message can have an alternative meaning, solely because the musician has come to BELIEVE he CONTROLS the music. You see, "his" music just took its own course into the heart and mind of an individual. The author's intent is as clear as he communicates very literately. When there is no room for the listener to interpret, the lyric has then become a social commentary. However, let's not neglect the melody, the sound...that element is always interpretative at its deepest level. > > In a sense, we live in a world where we perceive not only the conscious > > events but a parallel alternative in our primal beigness. Also at this > > level, we fall in love with the artistic work, which I believe the > > Greeks named, uh... I forget, not Eros...maybe Gupi..(someone out ther > > help me out). But we tend to mistakenly ascribe this love to the > > composer since there is no tangible condition to grab a hold of. That > > is why adulation becomes common towards the artist instead of praising > > the "living" art piece FOR itself. If we perceive music and words as an > > animate entity, our perception of life would alter significantly. We > > would see that some words or music would instantly want to communicate > > to us, others, would leave us at the wayside. Perhaps waiting to be > > understood or looking for the willing "understandable" human listener. > > > > Whoa! Words and music until put together in some sort of 'tangible' > collection are nothing but tools at the disposal of an artist. Yes...learning the scales, theory and harmony, skills...yes, those are the tools. But let's not confuse the product with its tools. That which comes from the beyond and propels a listener TO the beyond IS intangible. Thus, it becomes necessary to exhalt the musician. Otherwise, if it was tangible, the musician "creator" would become insignificant. Do you associate "Happy Birthday" with an artist? Does "meaningful" music survives the artist? Music is timeless. It exists on its own. Once in the heart and mind of the public, it is unchangeable...non-controllable. If the musician is the "creator" then surely he must be able to "destroy" it, no? > And the artist > exists to create with those tools. IMHO, again, it's the artist's creation > that we adore, hence the adulation for the artist follows right behind. If you > think it's talking to you personally, or you think it's 'alive' then that's > your interpretation (although I may suggest that someone who believes a song > to be living might want to lay off the philosophy tomes). Quite frankly, I > don't see what's so mysterious about it. We have arrive at a point where "opinion" is your alibi. Let's not forget where evolved music came from...the Church, hence spiritual. The great classical composers looked upon the Divine to allow them the ability play His music. Theology and philosophy are intertwined. It may not be mysterious to you because you may want it to be as such. But unless you can provide me the anatomy of where, how music comes about, I must disagree. > > > Lyrics are the thinking vehicle. Melody, rhythm and harmony are the > > emotive (feeling) vehicle. The underlying message of the lyric is the > > glue to agreement or commonality. But the archetype OF the message > > appeals to our deep subconscious where only that ether --- that parallel > > universe --- exist to be ocassionally accessed by our consciousness as > > realization. > > The underlying message of the lyric is the glue to agreement? I thought all > of this was about our own interpretations of the lyrics! Not how we all > agree. FACT: we do not all agree. So in this theory of the archetype of a > message, what happens to the rest of the message that we only partially "get" > because the rest is lost in transit to the ether? Or are you accessing it all > day if you're listening to music all day? Are you accessing it if you hear a > commercial jingle? Or is that not deep enough? I must refer you to Jung and Joseph Campbell. We communicate at a deeper level through agreed upon archetypes. FACT: we do not all agree but we all agree upon the archetypal symbols. The overt message is the dressing of the music, the archetypal message lays in the foundation of the subsconcious (that is why jingle are effective. They go below your level of awareness). We may wish to acknowledge or ignore the latter, but it remains that the values of Love, Justice, Beauty, Truth...are constant. Unchangeable, no matter how much we wish to distort or ignore the values overtly. > > Methinks this discussion reeks of university coffeehouse psychostuff....sans > the university and the coffeehouse. I agree...I agree that I am constantly around a university environment. But does that diminishes the value of my point? electrix ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 00:03:13 +1000 From: Paul Baily Subject: Alloy: Of suitcases, coffee shops, and windpower... Hey y'all, Much though I really should shut this computer down (there's a doosie of a storm happening outside - love it!), I thought I'd throw my AUS$0.02 worth in. In Windpower: Interpretation, Sam & electrix were having a chat. Sam said: >I've read and reread this post, and the more I read, the more I disagree. >First of all, I think that electrix's philosophy on the creation of art as >being an animate entity unto itself is flawed. An artist creates a work and >it is their own. It is then presented to us for our enjoyment and/or >interpretation. I think it's that simple. I agree with you both...but especially with you, Dennis. The way I tend to think of music, or indeed any static art form, is that it's a little like looking at a prism, or maybe a drop of water hanging off a leaf in sunlight. Though it may be static, your interpretation is affected by your current point of view. Look at it from one point of view and you see nothing - a bit of odd shaped glass or a wet leaf. Look at it from another point of view, you see intense red, from another POV an equally intense cobalt blue, from yet another, perhaps a delicate blend of two adjacent colours. An artist's expression of what they think/feel can be put in specific terms leading to specific interpretations. Or, as TMDR seems to do, the expression can be deliberately vague or understated leaving it wide open to interpretation: on a canvas a few brush strokes are made that suggest a picture, it's up to you what you make of it. I think it also depends on what level you're prepared to look as to what you see. Take "My Brain Is Like A Sieve" for example. A superficial listen can give you an impression of something almost comical, but a closer listen reveals a profound sadness mixed with desperate hope. Perhaps the second interpretation occurs only after you've experienced something similar. The words cloaked in a seemingly casual tone that you once just hummed along to suddenly strike a chord, or resonance, and you sit up and take a whole new listen to it. The song itself hasn't changed, so what has to have changed what you get from it? My suggestion would be your point of view. >> Music is for feeling AND thinking in my books. Depending on the authors >> intent. By thinking I mean --- an artistic view is presented so as to be >> reflected upon. >> >So is there supposed to be a time when we mortals are "cued" into whether or >not the author would like us to go deeper and root out the inner meaning of >their creation? Are we supposed to pick up on this when we "detect" the >author's intent? And when shall this detection take place? Would a footnote >in the liner notes suffice? Heh! Y'know, I keep thinking back to something Thomas once wrote on the original kspace dolby list. The egotist in me would like to think it was caused by me signing off a couple of messages "May The Cube Be With You", but he was probably going to write it anyway since I'm sure I wasn't the first to think of it. :) He said something along the lines of - in fact, I still have that message filed, so here's exactly what he said (7 Dec 95): "...and I do welcome the spontaneous adoption of "May the Cube be With You" as a harmless and meaningless sign-off for mail postings here that recently have been getting increasingly analytical and literate, much to my amusement." To hop back to my example earlier and horribly paraphrase someone I can't remember right now: sometimes a wet leaf is just a wet leaf. :) I guess the moral of the story is that your take on the story is never going to be quite the same as that of the artist's. It provides a starting point, but where you take it from there, and what you get out of it is completely up to you. cheers, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Baily paulb@thehub.com.au Consulting SE/IT Mercenary http://www.thehub.com.au/~paulb Brisbane tel: +61-7-3857-8048/+61-411-875-009 Australia There is a spirit here that won't be broken. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:36:06 -0400 From: Melissa Jordan Subject: Alloy: www.on-air.com "Europa and the Pirate Twins" is playing right now on this web radio station. Y'all should check it out - it makes for great work music for '80's kids. The sound quality on the ISDN Real Audio feed is fab (don't know how good it is if you're using a modem.) My Friend James told me about it, and, now that I'm actually hooked up to a first rate computer at work, I'm jamming while I write mindless slop (kinda like high school - lying on the living room floor, writing doofy essays, in front of MTV - when the M still meant "music.") They play a remake of "Come On Eileen" that just kills me. (They just played a remake of "I Know What Boys Like," too - but, for the love of god - - did we really NEED another one???) Okay. Back to the pit. Cheers, Melissa Melissa R. Jordan Special Projects Manager International Programs Office Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (301) 881-6858, ext. 4567 (301) 881-9435 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:29:27 -0400 From: Tim Dunn <113203.2623@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation wordy - exqueeze me? You're right of course, although I wasn't conscious of writing an essay, = I just tend to say what I think. Some of the thoughts of that nature formed= the basis of an essay I wrote for my degree which caused a bit of a stink= and was a bit divisive all round. One lecturer thought it a work of unsurpassed genius, while the one who marked it thought it was garbage an= d failed it. Ho hum. the_copse ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:00:45 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Message from Ian Hi All, I spoke with Ian today. He tells us that all is going well, but he = is still wondering about the following contributions: Braeda --- Beauty of a Dream Ms. Sakamoto --- Close but no Cigar Can anyone tell me about these two? And for Lissu, Ian got your tape last night. Everyone --- Post here, or call Ian (519) 642-4339 if you have any = questions or concerns. Best, Stephen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:15:15 -0400 (EDT) From: MsSakamoto@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: www.on-air.com In a message dated 97-10-07 13:12:00 EDT, mjordan@goodwill.org writes: > They play a remake of "Come On Eileen" that just kills me. (They just > played a remake of "I Know What Boys Like," too - but, for the love of god > - did we really NEED another one???) Oh, was it the ska version with the girl singing it? I love that.... And I like the Waitresses, so be nice! - --Suzanne-- "I know what boys like...I know what guys want..." p.s. I'm sorry about the song...I just finished it yesterday and realised that I didn't have time to send it and get it there...I'm completely kicking myself now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:13:47 -0700 From: Frank Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation > >> >> Methinks this discussion reeks of university coffeehouse psychostuff....sans >> the university and the coffeehouse. > >I agree...I agree that I am constantly around a university environment. >But does that diminishes the value of my point? > >electrix Sin duda El Franco My Web Sites http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/6745/tryagain.html http://members.tripod.com/~WheelerF/index.html Home (Page) Improvement!! Remember, I'm just a kid in the candy store. Little by little I'm getting there. Join me on the ride. El Franco ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:17:09 -0700 From: Frank Subject: Re: Alloy: Windpower: Interpretation At 01:29 PM 10/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >wordy - exqueeze me? >You're right of course, although I wasn't conscious of writing an essay, I >just tend to say what I think. Some of the thoughts of that nature formed >the basis of an essay I wrote for my degree which caused a bit of a stink >and was a bit divisive all round. One lecturer thought it a work of >unsurpassed genius, while the one who marked it thought it was garbage and >failed it. Ho hum. > >the_copse > A fifth grader has trouble understanding all of this. Ha! El Franco ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:15:45 -0700 From: Frank Subject: Re: Alloy: Of suitcases, coffee shops, and windpower... > >I guess the moral of the story is that your take on the story is never >going to be quite the same as that of the artist's. It provides a >starting point, but where you take it from there, and what you get out of >it is completely up to you. > >cheers, > >Paul. > >________________________________________________________________________ Paul. I think you are correct. El Franco My Web Sites http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/6745/tryagain.html http://members.tripod.com/~WheelerF/index.html Home (Page) Improvement!! Remember, I'm just a kid in the candy store. Little by little I'm getting there. Join me on the ride. El Franco ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 23:40:07 GMT From: ljackson@nstar.net (Lee Jackson) Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:43:55 -0700, you wrote: >Sam, an artist RECEIVES the music. He is a receptacle to harmony,=20 >sounds, music. This is more apparent if a person is a=20 >composer/musicians. Having written music and improvised on my = instrument,=20 >I can honestly say that the sound comes from the beyond. Bravely said, and I agree. The old saying about letting the muse enter oneself is very accurate - it's almost like channeling from the ether into your computer. // Lee Jackson (ljackson@nstar.net) // Music and Sound Director // Apogee Software, Ltd. & 3D Realms Entertainment ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:52:28 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Re: Alloy: starting a big debate, perhaps.......................... Tim Dunn wrote: > I think the point of all really great music is the effect on the emotions > caused by the combination of words and music. Of course instrumental music > can be affective, but everyone since the theory was first verbalised by > Monteverdi and his Mantuan and Florentine cronies has agreed that the > moving of the emotion is the primary raison d'etre of all art. And the > summit of this ability is to bypass any intellectual and critical faculties > the listener may have, and go straight for the heart. Or the "sense" of aesthetics. > The reason we listen > to Thomas is that, being by and large very discerning and cultured, and > with alot of us being musicians on the list too, is that Thomas is so far > ahead of the field that he can do this to us very regularly. Those less > versed in the arts and music and poetry do not have the ability to > recognise 'high' art as such, which explains the existence of Bon Jovi et > al, but those whose senses are more finely tuned , and therefore more > demanding, and critical of BJ's sledgehammer sensibilities, seek out a > higher level of achievement, and I believe - a greater level of fulfilment. Not sure if I completely agree here. First, not all of TDR's music "hits" me in the same way. TDR music is/was considered pop music. So, the music itself falls on the pop category of artist. Also, at further examination the music complexity is not as abundant as his ability to use the electronics effectively and to summon layers of intricate colorful "sounds." So, if we were to put TDR music on a scale of simple to complex, well...there are quite a bit of complex music out there. Jazz avante garde for one. Yet, some people with "refine" and "music skills" cannot appreciate Jazz, muchless hardcore jazz. On the other hand there is a basic level in which Maddona's music fulfills my aesthetics. I have long left the idea of artist alliance. If the music "hits" me it is doing its job, regardless of who is the recording artist. I listen to both complex music and "simple" music. I can achieve just as great of a fulfillment by listening to either. What I think the listener has to beware of is music intended for mass consumption. But even then, we can find the subtle elements of music done with integrity. Take for example, I can tell when some artist are "trying" to rap as compared to a genuine attempt to rap. I mean.. a connoisseur listener of Rap can immediately distinguish when there is a blatant attempt to be "contemporary." Of course, there are artist who are "good" emulators, but that's another subject. Some artist insist on riding the bandwagon regardless. In general, what I am trying to say is that yes, perhaps a musician can more than appreciate another musician's work because they understand the intricacies of techniques employed. But music "hits" everyone of us in that aesthetic space (that place beyond) in the same manner. Of course, I always seek for a level of upliftment in any music before I determine if it is "spiritual." > Before anyone starts jumping on me for proposing what sounds like a Hitler > Youth version of critical appreciation, a crime of which I am regularly > accused, it's really worthwhile to sit down and think for a moment about > the pathetic and feeble music which people listen to every day. I know from > the FES that we do have incredibly broad-ranging taste on this list, and I > firmly believes that that is both a cause, and a symptom, of something much > more fundamental. An appreciation of the high arts is absolutely critical > for a greater appreciation and comprehension of the world around us. Every > object for me is imbued with resonances of fine songs, books, articles and > so on. I agree. > Music to most people means very little, which, I do not apologise for > saying, means that they are culturally and spiritually impoverished. Art is > life's finest and most expressive manifestation. It teaches us how to > think, but more importantly, how to feel, to understand, and to emote. > Those who have no experience of correct, emotive and powerful use of > language will not be able to express themselves, not only in situations > where language is of practical and functional use, but more importantly in > putting across profound emotions. A man who chokes on 'I love you' has > obviously little knowledge of Ovid, Keats, or Ella Fitzgerald. And that's > just an obvious example. The Arts tend to emphasize the present socioeconomical conditions. It sets the pace to the revolutionary spark started by dissidents. However, it can be used to brainwash the public, politically control, and manipulate the consumer's wallet. A good example of what can happen is the movie-documentary "Hype." The Grunge scene was sophisticatedly used to its outmost advantage. Thus, true Art, like anything else...can be the subject of Orwellian 1984. I am still wondering about the effect intended in the "The Wall" concert in Berlin. electrix ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:47:59 -0700 From: electrix Subject: Re: Alloy: Music: An Interpretation Lee Jackson wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:43:55 -0700, you wrote: > > >Sam, an artist RECEIVES the music. He is a receptacle to harmony, > >sounds, music. This is more apparent if a person is a > >composer/musicians. Having written music and improvised on my instrument, > >I can honestly say that the sound comes from the beyond. > > Bravely said, and I agree. The old saying about letting the muse > enter oneself is very accurate - it's almost like channeling from the > ether into your computer. Channeling....couldn't have been better described. I also think that is why it is important for a musician to study music, improve his instrumental skills. Mastering the tools of the trade refines the ability of the musician to lock-in at what he "hears" and perform the material - purely. The more skillful the musician the more the potential of cross-channeling pure "muse." As a corrollary, the more educated the listener, the higher the appreciation and receptivity...the tolerance. electrix ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V2 #209 ***************************