|
Let us make then the dialectical leap: most so-called "accurate" interpretations of poetry (improvisation/music) are worse than mistakes; perhaps there are only more or less creative or interesting mis-readings, for is not every reading necessarily a clinamen? Should we not therefore, in this spirit, attempt to renew the study of (improvisation) by returning yet again to fundamentals? No (improvisation) has sources, and no (improvisation) merely alludes to another. (Improvisations) are (played) by men, and not by anonymous Splendors. The stronger the man, the larger his resentments, and the more brazen his clinamen. But at what price, as readers are we to forfeit our own clinamen? I propose, not another new (improvisation) but a wholly different practical criticism. Let us give up the failed enterprise of seeking to "understand" any single (improvisation) as an entity in itself. Let us pursue instead the quest of learning to (hear) any (improvisation) as it's (improviser's) deliberate misinterpretation, as an (improviser,) of a precursor (improvisation) or of (improvisation) in general. Know each (improvisation) by its clinamen and you will "know" that (improvisation) in a way that will not purchase knowledge by the loss of the (improvisation's) power. Bloom, Anxiety of Influence, p. 43 + + + Women make music improvisations too. + + + Most accurate interpretations are worse than the mistakes. Thank you Harold--you really are our Moses. Music writing--should it be done by musicians (people who really really know music) or should it be done by writers who are passionate about the subject, despite not really really knowing what (the fuck) they are talking about? Music writing is a written thing. You don't listen to music writing, you read it. Music is a sonic thing. You don't read music, you listen to it. Sure, one of these days in the not too distant future music will be something you read--the metamorphosis into a lifeless visual enterprise will be complete. (Who can deny what is written is slowly but surely eclipsing the music itself in terms of interest and importance? Why aren't we musicians leaving our cultivated feelings poo on the carpet for public display in the sonic form?) In that instance, maybe music writing should be done only by writers for writers. A choose-one-or-the-other type of thing. More Pat Buchanan, less Paul Wolfowitz. In that instance, perhaps musicians (by definition) should simply ignore what is written about music by non musicians, regardless of how glossy the pages, how rad the free Mix CD. It has everything to do with writing and nothing to do with music. As such not apply to the musician--it is writing by writers for other writers. Musicians then would only be concerned with what other musicians are (de-facto) saying with their music based on the evidence (nor non evidence) and content of their clinamen. This clinamen thing which is of central importance to the musician clearly is of no interest to writers, and largely goes undetected as if inaudible suggests that the twain shall never meet - at least not meaningfully. Let us meditate on just what the impact writing about 'this music' has been on 'this music.' Let us take an accounting of all the joys and sorrows the world of writing has bestowed upon the musician about whom they write. Let us explore the patterns and trends behind who benefits from music writing and who does not. Let us ponder the mechanism that chooses who gets written about and where that data is published and to whom it is distributed. copyright, © 2007 Stanley Zappa visit us on MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/newtexture |
