[cc-community] Musicians Unity?
David
davidpalmer at westnet.com.au
Wed Jan 23 00:48:38 EST 2008
Shakti S wrote:
> Thank you Kevin and David for elaborating upon my topics, I feel
> honored that someone has the time to engage in some thoughtful
> discussion. I have tried to get some interest in musicians issues, in
> the past, but unfortunately I think musicians are united in their
> disunity.
Well, music would be boring if we all played the same tune.
The sad day for me was in 1980 when I saw my first drum
> machine used in a live gig, no longer did music breathe but had to
> keep up with the machine.
I must admit that they offended me tremendously when they first
appeared, but there's no way they can compete with a good drummer.
If a bass player places an accent somewhere else, can a drum machine follow?
Where's the feel?
I've come to appreciate the fact that they have plusses.
Beside the fact that small one/two person ensembles have a glorified
metronome to help keep their tempo together, it helps musos that haven't
played with a drummer so far in their career to listen for tempo and
then when they finally do get to play with a drummer, they don't muck
the rest of the ensemble around because they can't play in time.
And then music started to sound like a
> printing press that I used to operate.
When I was going through my rock/fusion era, I used to get some great
ideas for time beats off the washing machines in the commercial
laundries I did my washing in as we passed through.
I wondered why do they feel
> that they need to replace a percussionist with a machine.
You can't.
Any drummer that thinks he has been replaced with a machine does so
because he knows he isn't good enough.
Competition in town?
I've never been afraid of it.
I'll drop into the gig if Vinnie Colaiuto or Dave Weckl's in town.
I'm not to proud to learn, but frightened of a machine?
The only
> answer I could come up with was, to make things easier, but in doing
> this they avoid the mutual benefits (and compromises) of collaboration.
>
> Anyway the world has moved on and a lot of really stupid things have
> happened: Ignorance of a climate problem, while there is mindless
> consumption, people fly planes into buildings, and others blow
> themselves up for a "cause", millions die for the sake of getting
> every last drop of oil, the gap between the rich and the poor gets
> wider, and we have just lived through the bloodiest century in human
> history.
Again, this is a whole 'nuther subject.
>
> I feel that music has a very important role to play in process of
> "smartening back up", and in that light I am starting to become
> skeptical of those who are proud of what they can't do. It seems to
> me to be wanting to go to heaven but not wanting to die. Comparing a
> virtuoso to someone in a garage band does not impress me.
I'm not one for differentiation along 'social strata' concepts.
I've played in a 'garage band' with a bloke playing on an old Yamaha
electric grand that played fantastic chords and knew how to put them
together with coherency.
Rarely heard anybody that good on record.
Art Tatum and the ilk maybe.
Even Oscar Peterson copied his runs.
One cannot
> know what it is like to climb Mount Everest or to walk to the South
> Pole by reading a book, or pretending that one has had an experience.
> Smartening back up has to have a connection to reality.
That's right!
Can't beat that 'One Hot Minute".
I've had it more than once and live for the next time.
>
>> The expression that comes through in the individual performance
>> doesn't lie.
Glad you liked that one.
>
>
> What worries me is that when someone claims to be original, and yet
> a lot of others seem to be playing the same song. I hear about two
> minuets of content and then a ten minuet loop of repetition.
This is just rock orientation.
It's a feature not a bug.
It come from the old blues and gospel before that.
Call and response.
I hear
> those garage bands still play the same songs I used to play 35 years
> ago.
Maybe they're just learning?
I hear someone performing with a backing track of a whole
> orchestra, and sing out of pitch.
Quite a few do that, but is this the fault of the artist or the arranger?
If a key doesn't suit an artist, it's up to the arranger to transpose.
And let's not forget that an inept 'star' that whose backers can afford
an orchestral backing keeps a lot of muso's families fed.
I also hear a lot of good music
> (that still sounds like a lot of other music) from some very creative
> people, but when I think about the diversity of Bach,
Not bad but, like Bartok and Shostokovitch, wrote according to
mathematical formulas.
Did you know that?
I appreciate a lot of Bach but I actually prefer his contemporary, Teleman.
Self taught, also, from reading scores.
Probably played in garage (coach-house) bands.
Going back to the 'virtuoso' concept for a minute, did you know that in
Beethoven's day writing in consecutive fifths was an abomination, but it
is a feature of his music.
Beethoven was the punk rocker of his era.
He offended a lot of people.
Scarlatti, and
> the richness of Ravel and Debusey,
I'd be putting names before those also.
Mozart still is the master of melody for mine.
I just see someone just trying to
> get a view of the earth from the ground. Music has the potential to
> take one to great heights, and to replace that potential with
> consumerism insults the 30 years it takes to become a master, and
> that is where the journey begins, unconscious competence (but it is
> not unconscious, rather super-conscious)
>
> So what has all this to do with Creative Commons?
Well, it gives everybody on the list an opportunity to observe the
market that the licences need to cater to.
In this way, if the requirement is seen, an alteration can be made in an
already established piece, or a whole new number may get written.
I would like to
> see if it is relevant to a moment of real time different from any
> other moment. Why would someone need a license to do something that
> others can't? Or is this still just a part of someone trying to take
> a piece of the pie out of what someone else does?
I've never been afraid to give back and jealousy of knowledge is no more
than an admission that the personality that exercises it, doesn't have
much of it in the first place.
So if we want to
> share everything freely why worry if someone else uses it?
The different licences allow the creator of the piece to exercise
varying levels of 'possession' of the 'property' factor.
You can find out about all of them on the creative commons website.
Now I am
> speculating that if we don't need to earn money, but rather live our
> lives as we enjoy in a way that includes everyone else,
> (interdependence) we can do what we enjoy, and have what we need
> (note the word need rather than want) in a post oil society.
We can have it now.
I seem to have exactly that existence.
I had to clear the garbage out of my eyes to get there though.
till have to do it on a regular basis to preserve the status quo, also.
>
> http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/12/02127.html
> "The age of canned entertainment is coming to an end. It was fun for
> a while. We liked “Citizen Kane” and the Beatles. But we’re going to
> have to make our own music and our own drama down the road. We’re
> going to need playhouses and live performance halls. We’re going to
> need violin and banjo players and playwrights and scenery makers, and
> singers. We’ll need theatre managers and stage-hands.
> The Internet is not going to save canned entertainment. The Internet
> will not work so well if the electricity is on the fritz half the
> time (or more)."
This is one person's perception and I believe a mistaken one.
When corporates have to turn to other energy sources to hold onto market
share, they'll do it, and all you'll see will be a flicker on the screen
when they do.
If that.
>
> Please feel free to disagree, I celebrate all comments and states of
> mind. I will not be intimidated by anyone pretending to know more
> that I (how could they know, equally how could I know what another
> knows), for I have lived, experienced, achieved learned a lot, and am
> keen to keep going. Also the chances that I know something that the
> one disagreeing doesn't are quite high. I do not know that much about
> CC, and am teasing it out in my own way.
I think it would cost you a lot less time to go to the site and read up
on the various licence styles.
Regards,
--
David Palmer
Linux User - #352034
More information about the cc-community
mailing list