KVR Audio

jopy · Post by **jopy** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:26 pm

http://ootray.com/blog/?p=197

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:29 pm

I've just sent that to an Archer we have at work. I'll see how she fathoms it..

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:32 pm

She says:

Code: Select all

WTF? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Parsons
Sent: 02 November 2009 13:28
To: Nicola Harlow
Subject: Thought for the day..

..if you can piece your way through it..

http://ootray.com/blog/?p=197

I tend to agree.. She's a sensible sort too.

daz.diamond · Post by **daz.diamond** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:39 pm

jopy · Post by **jopy** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:42 pm

Hmm, I thought the point here was more obvious than it seems to be (and certainly not controversial). To paraphrase:

Performing music is no more than a skill. The tools and theory for making music are a lower form of music, whereas "the method" or the "total creative moment" is the higher form of making music.

Skill or theoretical knowledge represents preparedness at the lower level, but there's a higher virtue required to be ready at a more advanced level of making music.

[Confucius said:] 'There is more to the rituals than jade and brocades; there is more to ritual music than bells and drums.' [Likewise,] there is more to making music than synthesizers, effects, and drum machines.

Programming and/or playing notes is a method of 'study at ground-level'; but once you've mastered that level, it will flow from your heart. At that point, it becomes 'a soaring achievement' and you start really making music.

A person can write about all the technical details and people learn from that, but writing about music can't express the really sublime level of musical creation.

daz.diamond · Post by **daz.diamond** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:49 pm

"the higher level of music making can't express the really sublime level of creation"

1 : I'm not a creationist
2 : prove it !!

All thought and social interaction is based on experience of the world around us, so if I experience something mind-blowing that I have no comparisson for, then who the hell is 3rd-party to say that I'm not able to express something sublime, or for that matter - superlime.

Okay, so you may not experience my expression as sublime, but then that's not the point, is it.

jopy · Post by **jopy** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:50 pm

sorry, i should have amended that to say "writing about music can't express the sublime beauty of creation." that was what we call a cut-and-paste typo. at some point, writing about theory falls short of expressing the most interesting part of what is being created. that's all.

daz.diamond · Post by **daz.diamond** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:52 pm

- agreed there

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:34 pm

nah, both Nic & I got what it was saying, it's just somewhat obfuscated for the modern reader, being 400+ year old Chinese text probably translated in a far too literal manner..

I do agree with the sentiment, in that it basically requires sentience to realise emotion into non-deterministic action; also that the result of that action is frequently beyond our ken to adequately describe.

DSP

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:50 pm

duncanparsons wrote:the result of that action is frequently beyond our ken to adequately describe.

our Ken has always been a bit thick.

jopy · Post by **jopy** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:05 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
duncanparsons wrote:the result of that action is frequently beyond our ken to adequately describe.
our Ken has always been a bit thick.

He doesn't exactly look like the sharpest knife in the drawer:

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:07 pm

presciently modelled on Zac Efron..

archery