Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create
something sounded pretty good. Brian Eno's tape loops took musical talent
to create something different and interesting. I'm not talking about actual
man-hours of effort here. Also, keep in mind I am speaking of music created
solely on the Rebirth...as soon as you add in other synths and keyboards, it
strips away the limits. I mean, there are only so many sounds you can
create with that thing.
quoted 31 lines The assumption here is that the validity of music depends largely on the>The assumption here is that the validity of music depends largely on the
>effort spent in producing it. We could look at it another way: starting
>with the question "What is this music intended to do to [for?] its
>listeners?" If the intent--the purpose of the music--is to manipulate
>the hearers' energy level so as to whip the floor into a frenzy, I think
>few would disagree that the musical procedures typical of straight-ahead
>techno are tremendously efficient (in the sense of requiring a minimal
>effort for a large impact)... and while it's true that the style comes
>from the machines to some extent, it's also true that the machines
>(especially all-in-one boxes like the MC303) are very well adapted for
>the style.
>
>This has nothing to do with interesting art, of course, but it isn't
>completely without merit, and it does have its own validity in the right
>setting.
>
>Or, who decided that "interesting art" is the only valid purpose for music?
>
>... I write, even though I'd much rather hear interesting music than boring,
>functional, dancefloor music... J
> ________
> \ / | Bee women: "What kind of corn soldiers are you?"
>H. James Harkins | Arthur: "Umm, oh, er, we're, uh, we're colonels."
>jharkins@acpub.duke.edu |
> \/ | - from "The Tick," now on Comedy Central, 6PM M-F
>
>"If we keep our attention focused on the present, we can be sure of one
>thing, namely that whatever we are attending to in this moment will change..."
>-- Jon Kabat-Zinn
>
>