[NewMusic] coasting?

[Matt Davignon]

>
>
> ... 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").


Well, I think innovation happens and doesn't happen at all age levels. I see
both sides of the age barrier saying they're more innovative. I admit, with
the youth, it's often more painful. The thought that imitating something
innovative makes yourself innovative is something I see much more with the
young'uns. (Like goth kids thinking dressing goth makes them more
original.)

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.


You're making both our points here. One should read and listen to the
history of 'important' music to reach the conclusion that the best music is
individually sincere and has little to do with what you've read and heard.

I do think it's important to not have illusions about being the first person
to (            ). And trying to be the first to do something is really a
distraction from making music.


> 3) Many "groundbreaking" pieces of work have already been in the musical
> lexicon since they came out.
>
> PG:
> I have no idea what your first sentence really means.


If someone wasn't around to hear a "great new idea" when it was new, they've
probably heard a lot of the music that it's influenced since it came out -
the derivative works. While I'll never argue that it's the same to hear the
original as it is to hear the copies, the effect of hearing the original
work for the first time is different now than it was then. I think "so
that's where that idea came from", rather than "holey shiyat! Where did they
get that idea?! What a genius!"

If we don't have a shared history, we can't communicate - is that what
> youngsters are trying to achieve?


I guess I see the "shared history" in a sense that it's reflected in the
music. For another non-jazz, non-classical example, you can hear the history
made by groups like Kraftwerk when you listen to groups like Nine Inch
Nails. And if you like what you hear then eventually you find out you can go
back and listen to the Kraftwerk. Maybe what I'm saying is that some people
find it in books and scores, while others get the same satisfaction from
listening to the effects of those ideas in what's going on now.

Is "not reading" and "not studying" merely a way to drive a wedge between
> you and your parents/other
> authority figures?


Well, I should admit that I've never been fond of the idea of
artistic/musical authority figures.


>
> 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.


Dude, Kenny G's my dad.

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.


The elements that people have historically composed for and/or paid
attention to in this music have been largely
1) pitched notes from one or more instruments arranged in time and/or
2) the "concept", idea or cultural value of a piece.

For example, in most music you're listening to melody and harmony in time.
In some music (Reich, Cage, etc), you're listening to the execution of an
idea/concept.

When I'm talking about getting all excited about production values, I'm
referring to how instruments are mic'd and recorded, and looking at
treatment of sounds as a key element of music making. These are fairly
recent developments in music, but it's the musical world I personally live
in.

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?


I think it's possible to have a "rich musical history" and "a large array of
musical pursuits" without them necessarily being the same history/array as
advocates of this sort of study. Does a person have to read the same or
similar texts, listen to the same music, and listen to the same phenomenona
in music in order for that to be valid?

I've seen people be original and unoriginal on both sides of the fence. I
think it depends on the individual more than the course of study.

Personally, I've accepted that I'm never going to be particularly wide in
the range of things I can play as a musician. Frankly, I like my
limitations. Finding solutions to work within them is more rewarding for me
than having less limitations probably would be. For that reason, it might be
valid for folks to call me a crappy musician. (I'm not saying that any of
you have, I'm just saying you could.) I just don't worry about it. I do
things that I like to do and that I find musically important.

Matt