[NewMusic] coasting?

[Phillip Greenlief]

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Matt Davignon 
Subject: Re: [NewMusic] coasting?

For the first several years I was making music, there was this well
spoken
law in music that said something along the lines of "Nothing you ever do
in
music will have any significance, when compared to things that have
already
been done."

As a 16 year old, I heard this from a guitar teacher, and my unspoken
response was "Fuck you. I'm not taking lessons from you anymore."

PG:
Good idea. 

Matt D:
I'm simply going to make music the most "me"
that I can, and simply count myself lucky if anyone happens to like it.
To
that goal, my thoughts about studying up on "older, better" music remain
the
same:

PG:
This is the best antidote to history: be yourself.

I applaud you for thinking out loud here, but you know, I never meant
that younger musicians don't have a right to make music. I feel like, on
some level, you're defending youth in general here. I never implied that
younger musicians are not making great music. I merely implied that I'm
kind of sick of hearing younger musicians talk about how music isn't
"innovative" unless they are making it (because they're young and
"revolutionary"). I also lament that those same musicians are not "well
acquainted" with their own instruments, the history of their instrument,
or the history of music as a whole. If they were, they would realize
that just about everything has been done (one really narrow way of
looking at things), and that what is really important is that you make
the best music you can at any stage of your career/development, and that
your music is sincere - it comes from who you are in all your
experiences, not just what you've read or listened to. 

Matt D:
2) While reading other people's scores might make me a more educated,
"better" musician, I simply have no interest in becoming 'better' in
that
sense.

PG:
I don't know, if you call yourself a composer (or an improviser, which
is to compose in real time), it seems like you might want to know what
other composers have done. But I realize I'm a fascist, and that I will
hopefully soon be dead along with the rest of the "important" people in
the "cannon" that I find "valuable".

Matt D:
3) Many "groundbreaking" pieces of work have already been in the musical
lexicon since they came out. Sometimes it's a little underwhelming to
hear
the original, genius work after hearing all the music that's been built
on
those ideas. A good example of this is hearing Terry Riley's "Poppy
Nogood
and the Phantom Band" after hearing the 38 years of music that used
real-time sampling since then.

PG:
I have no idea what your first sentence really means. How can a piece be
in the lexicon since its arrival? Have you ever read Slonimsky's
"Lexicon of Musical Invective"? - (I'm sorry, there I go again,
referring to essential texts) - never mind what I was going to say. If
we don't have a shared history, we can't communicate - is that what
youngsters are trying to achieve? Is "not reading" and "not studying"
merely a way to drive a wedge between you and your parents/other
authority figures?

Matt D:
4) When I think of audiences that I hope would listen to my music, I
don't
usually think of people who spend large amounts of time studying scores
and
reading books on theory.

PG:
And yet I love your recordings and spend time studying scores and
reading books. Shows you what you know about your audience.

Some of your statements remind me of something Kenny G once said, which
was basically that he "doesn't have time to practice, it's just not part
of my lifestyle". BTW: I am in no way comparing your music to Kenny G's
music.

Matt D:
5) Most of the 'classic' works of music seem to either function on tone
or
concept. As someone who grew up listening to over-produced music of the
80's, production values became as much of a part of my understanding of
music as any of the traditional elements. I like structures created from
sound textures, and specific kinds of them.

PG:
Again, your first sentence is a little difficult to make out -
"function" or "tone" is what makes something "classic"? I'm not
following you. Your supporting sentences do little to strengthen your
topic sentence.

Matt D:
6) I personally like it when people I meet come from different musical
backgrounds, so I would never want to describe a particular piece of
music
of musical text as "essential". Let people work out their commonalities
for
themselves and interpersonally.
 
PG:
Fine - so there is only the subjective - objectivity should never enter
the realm of music criticism...trying to determine an objective set of
aesthetics with regard to music and its construction is a useless
activity.
 
I like working with people from different backgrounds too - but that
implies that there IS a background - someone has music in their
history...and not just FM radio. Someone brings to the
table/rehearsal/performance a history of their own musical experiences -
why wouldn't you want that "history" to be a rich one? Why wouldn't you
want that set of experiences to span a large array of musical pursuits?
Why wouldn't you want to enter the dialogue being well informed?