What there is to "get" with art: Surely, people are not assuming this word
in this context refers to the answer to the problem the equation of an art
piece puts forward, because that would be way too stinking and petty of a
literal interpretation of the word, art, in this context. What there is to
'get' is an appreciation, understanding, an open regard for the artist's
intent. That, in no way presumes that the intent is the same thing as the
final output of experience from the piece, (for no matter how familiar you
may be with an artist's intent the actual experience of what they are hoping
to achieve may always still evade you) but at least we can make attempts to
understand and appreciate the process of turning intent into some
experiential. And while leaving ourselves open to whatever experience
results from the piece we can still try to unravel our experience in the
framework of knowing what they are aiming for. I think a lot of people out
there listen and like autechre but don't seem to respect what it is they are
trying to do. Now who the hell really knows what they are trying to do with
their music, besdies the obvious - push the medium, constantly evolve from
themselves. I am sure we all have our theories. But to fault them for
wanting to perform in total blackness, or because Confield is yet another
succesful departure from their previous sound as well as the mass blanketing
of sound out their saturating the scene, is crazy. When people get into
judging the artists according to their own expectations or visions for how
they should evolve, that is what people don't get, and is a not fair to the
artists. Autechre is at the point now where people expect them to sound the
same, after they have transformed this far. I dont think they give a shit.
But it is definitely a misgiving for those fans who do. Its kinda of a fan
hypocrisy, go autechre go, push it, evolve, oh but now that you have
achieved this amazing sound over the years, stay the same, dont change
anymore, its sounding too whatever......confield is an achievment, change
in a place and time with an artform that is difficult to do right now.
-----Original Message-----
From: EggyToast [mailto:eggy@eggytoast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:37 PM
To: idm@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [idm] Re: Ae
At 02:01 PM 7/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
quoted 1 line Why should music require something inherent to "get" in the first place?
>Why should music require something inherent to "get" in the first place?
I agree to a point. Nearly all of the music I like I listened to and found
*something* I liked on the first listen. Sometimes it took a while to
really get into it, but there was nearly always something that stood out to
me. Whether it be a particular sound, an overall vibe, or whatever.
Oddly enough, the stuff I didn't really "get" on the first listen was
always leaning more towards the simple side, rather than the complex
side. For example, when I first listened to "music has the right to
children," I thought "what's the big deal?" I thought it was sort of
boring and I "didn't get it." I listened to it about a month later and
realized that I really dug it.
So usually it's the stuff that's beguiling simple, rather than technically
complex, that takes me a while to "get." Perhaps I'm jaded by listening to
more "complex" music in the first place :D Or maybe music that devotes so
much energy to being technically complex should rather devote energy to
being "good."
derek
-------
eggytoast.com
-------
with lather thingy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org