Re: [LAU] Bitwig: what we can learn from it

On 04/01/2014 09:21 PM, Hartmut Noack wrote:
> Am 01.04.2014 23:47, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:57:44PM +0200, Hartmut Noack wrote:
>>
>>> Am 31.03.2014 23:03, schrieb Len Ovens:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Music isn't a competition about smartness.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is what was being said. Music today seems to be no longer
>>>> about communicating anything at all... merely soundiing somewhat pleasant,
>>>> or showing off some vocal (or other) gymnastics seems to be most of it.
>>>
>>> I dont see that. I think, that today music is in the best shape I
>>> experienced since I taped the radio shows in memoriam John Lennon back
>>> in 1981.
>>
>> There's a daily program on RAI radio 3 (the cultural channel here
>> in Italy) called 'alza il volume' or in plain English 'pump up the
>> volume'. It keeps a look on the 'non mainstream' music scene. Much
>> of what it outputs is just entertaining and at times plainly boring,
>> but every now and then there will be some real gems. And most of
>> those gems are very probably produced using software such as Bitwig,
>
> I think, where the attitude of a musician reaches the point of "I know,
> what to do and I will do it just right." the choice to tools becomes
> liquid again: there are some great recodings today that are made on
> antique 4-Track tapes, Portishead use a hardware HD-recorder from the
> 90ies, most will use Pro Tools though...
>
>
>> and would not exists without it. So in that sense you are certainly
>> right, this *is* an interesting time for music production, at no
>> time before there was such a range of tools available as we have
>> today. But at the same time there's an incredible number of people
>> who are using these tools but absolutely fail to produce anything
>> that stands out, to put it mildly.
>>
>> If music is about 'communicating' anything, it should probably
>> (IMHO) first communicate itself.
>
> Absolutely! I want to hear music, that speaks for itself, before I
> accept thoughts and feelings transported by it. Anyway it is all about
> individuality plus love for music, both combined will almost
> automatically reject any boring standardisation and enable the artist to
> produce something worth listening to with *any* tool that offers the
> needed flexibility to fit the vision.
>
>> There's nothing more boring
>> than an artist trying to communicate his or her very personal
>> feelings, be they sorrow or anger. The very least you need is
>> a wider context that is relevant to others, and the music (or
>> any form of art) that will most strongly communicate anything
>> but itself will be the one that in which the creator himself
>> disappears completely.
>
> Rock/Pop music is performance art, the "Rockstar" is a role, that is
> played by someone, who happens to sing/play at the same time. The result
> is not music in the sense of Bach or Mahler but still relevant art if
> done right.

But Bach and Mahler and many (if not most) of what we now consider
"classical and/or/great" musicians wrote for the same reason: to write
something that people would pay money for. In Bach's day, the only
people who had the money were far fewer than today's horde of music
listeners. In that sense, the composer was performance art; Mozart, for
example.

-- 
David W. Jones
gnome@email-addr-hidden
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user