[NewMusic] (no subject)

[Matthew Goodheart]

Ummm, amidst much of the previous contention, I was trying to be not- 
so-contentious, but rather ameliorate contentiosity through agreeing  
and pointing out the converse. . .

On the other hand, I hear far more criticisms of traditional training  
from people who have not done it than I do rationalizations of "poopy  
sounds" because of training.  I don't think I've heard "Wow, that  
must be good because he went to Julliard," whereas I've often heard  
"I've never had a lesson in my life" from someone in the midst of  
spewing a series of obvious cliches, at least in the experimental  
scene. (Though of course, I've heard both. . . ) Criticisms of lack  
of training tend to fall into a class (and/or race/ethnicity) based  
assumptive pretext, while criticisms of training tend to fall into an  
anti-intellectual and class based assumptive pretext.

As I'm sure most of us agree, neither training nor the lack of it are  
determinants of the quality of the work. But then, I tend to find  
that what we recognize as "quality work" depends greatly on our  
personal experience.

mg

wow, I have no idea if that made sense at all

On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Matt Davignon wrote:

> I'm not sure if that one's aimed at me or not. If so, I never claimed
> such a thing when we had that discussion that time. I've been
> pretentious for saying completely different things.
>
> Matt
>
>
> Matthew Goodheart may or may not have used a 'duh' voice while  
> quoting me:
>> Claiming that musical training or years of experience assign
>> profundity to one's poopy sounds is yes,
>> pretentious.
>
> before going:
>> I would add that claiming that the lack of such training or
>> experience as a badge of authenticity is pretentious as well.
>>
>> mg