[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: everything goes back to . . .

1.  Hey, Kelvin and Chris.  Post my previous response to this thread to the
list, if ya want, if ya can.  Didn't realize I was sending just to you
individually . . .

2.  Prestokelvo asks:

>>>>You indicated that "even the Beatles go back to some things, too."  It's
obvious what influenced their earlier stuff.  But what about the later,
"experimental" stuff.   Do you think they were influenced by something, or
was is just out of the blue (or the pot, or the LSD.)  Do you think they
ever listened to John Cage's compositions?<<<<<  and >>>Question #2:  Are
there any artists currently working that you believe are completely
original?  Is there anything new left to be done?  Maybe
the definition of "original" has changed.  Maybe instead of meaning
developing new elements, it now means combining borrowed elements in new and
original ways.  Maybe...<<<<<

What I think is that nothing is totally original and nothing has ever been
totally original.  There's a new self-consciousness to the combining of old
influences into new collage-like stuff these days, which is certainly part
of the postmodern.  But it's not like there was ever anything before that
didn't go back to somthing else.

There's a myth that the Romantics believed in total originality, as in
having no antecedents, which is nonsense.  They meant something else by
originality.  It just seems obvious to me that if you work in a form, you
have predecessors; if you work against something, even, your prdecessors are
those who you oppose.

But we can still talk about degrees of originality.  And, maybe better, we
can talk about genius with a form.  When an artist's character is stamped
all over his/her work in a way that no one can emulate, really, ever,
there's an element of genius.  And if that is there, then there's a sense in
which the work of that artist is totally original.  But even at that I'm
defining originality as something more like singularity.  The work is still
rooted in previous forms.  Thus, perhaps Elvis's voice is singular.  And
perhaps the voice of Karin Bergquist is singular.  And maybe we could argue
about degrees of singularity, too.  Or ways of being singular.   Maybe the
thing that makes karin special is the dignified midwestern play in her
voice, or the release of a note at the top of an emotional rise.  Or
somethin'.

Or we can just enjoy the music and talk to each other about what in the
music makes us happy and not worry very much about who's more original than
who.

Cos I think it's quality, not originality, that matters most.  Bands that
are great have a quality to them that makes them stand out.  And it doesn't
necessarily have to do with the complexity of their music or the originality
of it or the simplicity of it.  It has to do with the soul behind it.

Thus he rambled.

That is all.

Fred

I dunno...I kind of like the Beatles.

Just a thought...

Kelvin



---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/