KVR Audio

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:20 am

Has 'art wank' been mentioned yet, you know, holding one note down for 20 mins and calling it 'bleeding edge experimentational music' ?

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:25 am

I'd like to see vurt on stage!
what with his one note, his arpeggiator........

...... and his 'bleeding edge experimentational' ambience.

No dig at you. How cool can you look doing this?

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:28 am

well id have strippers dressed as penguins too!
how bleeding edge is that!!!!

or to be more precise when did i say i was bleeding edge?

altho the stage thing is happening again soon ill send you tickets

nocompromise · Post by **nocompromise** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:30 am

vurt wrote:well id have strippers dressed as penguins too!
how bleeding edge is that!!!!

or to be more precise when did i say i was bleeding edge?

altho the stage thing is happening again soon ill send you tickets

good morning?

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:32 am

fuckin great mornin so far yeah!!!!
birds are singin,no rain what more could i ask for?

and no work for 15 hours

RTaylor · Post by **RTaylor** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:34 am

vurt wrote:well id have strippers dressed as penguins too!
how bleeding edge is that!!!!

Are they zombie penguins?

Caleb · Post by **Caleb** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:41 am

Strippers dressed as penguins (Nuns?).
I'd say that's not very bleeding edge at all vurt.

Caleb

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:45 am

Caleb wrote:Strippers dressed as penguins (Nuns?).
I'd say that's not very bleeding edge at all vurt.

Caleb

did i say what time of the month it was and no not nuns,penguins!

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:45 am

RT

These are self-imposed ...you chose the form

Yes, I think I see your point. I've been a bit of a pedant here

When I state that there are always restrictions, I am assuming structural restrictions that could be extended even to the human being - music must involve sound, for instance(although you could probably Google an exception). I was not assuming the practical limits as you mentioned.

Duchamp is an interesting example because I find some of his paintings beautiful, but some of his later sculpture seems almost random for randomness sake -laughing at convention. I enjoy the idea the art represents but aesthetically don't find it appealling.

Well, anyways, off to bed. I look forward to the jibber-jabber to come while I sleeo!

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:45 am

RTaylor wrote:
vurt wrote:well id have strippers dressed as penguins too!
how bleeding edge is that!!!!
Are they zombie penguins?

some of them may well be by the time we get the production up and running

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:45 am

RTaylor wrote:
Lunch Money wrote:Tsk, tsk, RT... you're bordering on becoming obstinate instead of presenting a convincing argument.

I enjoy Voice of Fire. That's artistic merit enough. I don't really NEED any other proof... and to ask for it is bizarre. That's like asking someone to 'prove' why they like any particular artist. I like it. End of story.
:} Isn't that evasive. I'm not asking for proof... I'm just asking what you find to be appealing about it. Which stripe do you like best?

Not even a little bit. On the other hand, isn't that comment a bit too sly?

It's not quite as clever as you think, but it's not bad, actually.

As for Audacity...
It doesn't read that way.

Well now ya know.

Regarding graphite and pen and ink... yes, I agree! I'm not sure how that's a refutation, though.
It's not refuting anything... merely saying that it's not a particularly interesting experiment. Two colors has been explored to death.

I can't imagine pen and ink or graphite and paper EVER being "done to death", but I guess that's one of those things that shows a fundamental difference in our perception of valid art.

As for the creativity to be found in restriction... ... Haiku is a very restricted form...
I don't deal well with restrictions.

That's fine, but it doesn't mean art can't be created by OTHER people, in a context of 'restriction' or 'convention'.

"Experimental" music CAN in fact have many restrictions. ... Some people LOVE atonality. I don't, and I would feel rather constricted trying to make something that sounds wonky just for the sake of it.
These are self imposed.

As is the decision to completely eschew what are considered 'pop' songwriting techniques. Whether or not you choose to impose a restriction on yourself is irrelevant to whether or not the end product is meaningful in an artistic context.

At the end of the day, art is about expression. If my emotion is best conveyed with a melancholy song in Em with a sparse piano arrangement that nonetheless follows a fairly conventional chord progression, then that is how it shall be written.

So yes, there CAN be chains other than those of 'convention'.

Greg
You chose the form... this is not restrictive.

Well... I agree with the essence of what you're saying, and in fact it's been my point all along.

You can't make my own point and use it against me!

That's just not cricket as far as debating convention goes.

But it doesn't really address my point, speaking of being evasive...

To put it to you bluntly-- do you think that valid and new musical expression can come from within 'typical' pop and rock formats, or not?

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:22 pm

i jsut want to know where all you fuckwits get off saying 'original' but meaning unique. 'original' describes relation to an origin.. origins are everywhere.. the most i can suss of the application f the term is 'honest,' or 'direct.' nothing to do with similitude.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:32 pm

RTaylor wrote:
munchkin wrote: Either art is celebrated and makes profit or it lives in the gutter without an audience. That's how art is celebrated in capitalism. It's nothing new. Rembrandt and Da Vinci would not have been able to paint had they not been celebrated and rewarded financially by their patrons.
None of this makes art any better or worse. It's not integral to art in any way shape or form. How much cash do you think the whole of the concrete movement made? How much do you think most musicians make?

Did Depeche Mode make better music than Teardrop Explodes? Do Eminem or Britney, who pull down tons of cash, make better art than {name your favorite band here}?

But art does not have value without an audience. Bedroom artists and musicians who don't take their work to an audience don't get anywhere. Comparing Depeche Mode with Teardrop Explodes is not the point. They are commercial artists who produce a hybrid of pop and rock. They aren't creating experimental music. That's what the title of this discussion is about.

The point I'm making is that art and experimental music need patronage to become successful. And success is what shapes the culture and conciousness of society. Charles Saatchi funds upcoming artists. His patronage influences who we see and know about over the next 5 years. Whether we like this arrangement or not.

RTaylor wrote:
The romantic notion of Van Gogh suffering for arts sake is a fantasy used to feed the myth that sells his calendars and posters. He hungered for success and suffered terribly because he failed to achieve it in his own lifetime.
He suffered because he had some mental problems that medicine at the time couldn't take care of, he had some unfortunate relationships, he was broke and hungry and got made fun of a lot. I think his art was the only thing in his life that didn't make him suffer.

Munch?

How do you know he had a medical condition that could be treated with modern medicine? This is your interpretation. His depression might've been reactive - based on the fact that only his brother offered him patronage. The failure of his art to become popular and lucrative could have been the primary reason for his suffering. But where does he fit into a discussion about experimentation in art? His art didn't bring us modernism. That was Picasso and his use of montage.

RTaylor wrote:
His art is celebrated because it's beautiful, valuable and is wrapped up in the Van Gogh legend. That's where it's resonance comes from. The hype is considered as valuable as the process of creation in the celebration of art/music in modern society. One cannot exist without the other.
How much of that hype is due to Vincent? How much of that really has anything to do with his art?

Hype is just hype. It has no bearing on the quality of the art it "represents". Art rarely has any bearing on the hype it generates. Hype is a gift given to us by salesmen and advertising firms. Salesmen and advertising firms sell what they get paid to sell. They don't sell things simply to celebrate them.

One can very easily exist without the other.

Van Gogh has been turned into a commodity. This has more to tell us about the way art is used in modern society than all of Van Goghs paintings put together. The point I'm making is that this commodification (hype) has a direct bearing on what art and experimental music we have access to. Hype shapes the careers of artist and musicians. Hype is shaped by political and fiscal agendas. Hype is perpetuated by critics, patrons, the state, companies and artist and musicians in order to promote a product and protect a brand. This impacts directly upon the artist and musician. It shapes the direction that art and music have taken in the previous and present century.

The artist and musician don't stand seperately from society and culture. Social and cultural influences are all prevasive. When people complain that there is nothing new in art or music they are identifying the very essence of modernism - montage. And montage is the process of taking the culture and ideas around us (including all the hype) to create something new.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:37 pm

munchkin wrote:And montage is ...

... a form of synthesis

slainte

rob

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:00 pm

xoxos wrote:i jsut want to know where all you fuckwits get off saying 'original' but meaning unique. 'original' describes relation to an origin.. origins are everywhere.. the most i can suss of the application f the term is 'honest,' or 'direct.' nothing to do with similitude.

"Unique" is a hugely mis-used word, as well. If I take a Britney song and change one of the notes, it's technically unique. Not that you did this, but I always chuckle when somebody uses comparative adjectives with "unique" (eg. "Wow, that's really unique!")

However, more to the point, "original" is the correct word. Check dictionary.com for quick verification.

All 4 of the definitions for "original" as an adjective are appropriate.

bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???