Wiardgroup

(hmmm ... things seem to have calmed down here, so maybe I should keep my 
mouth shut, but, no, sorry ...)

At 09:01 AM 6/29/04 +0000, "konkuro" <konkuro@aol.com> wrote:
>Doug:  Thank you for pointing me to the correct posts.  Kindly note,
>howe'er, that I did NOT edit your statement, nor did I give any
>indication that it was a quotation.  It was a paraphrase. The
>problem was that I didn't give the proper weight to the
>word "repertoire."  Now I think I understand what you were saying.

Fair enough, John; I wasn't very clear in my original statement, so your 
misunderstanding is entirely understandable.

>The reason people like the music you so often hear in "pops"
>concerts is that it often is good.  It's like seeing a fine painting
>by David or Ingres vs. dog crap thrown at a canvas. Progress ebbs
>and flows, and the 20th Century in many ways has been an artistic
>Dark Age as sure as the 11th Century was a scientific Dark Age.
>Audiences realize that minimalists, serialists, et. al. have only
>found new ways to be boring. Maybe when people stop trying to pass
>off novelty and vulgarity as music, people will be willing to listen.
>
>Did I miss the point again?  I'm a tad fried...

I agree that the greats of the 1600s-1800s really are great (they're played 
again and again by symphonies for the same reason that Led Zeppelin and 
Motown are played again and again on the radio - they're good music), but I 
believe Chris when he says that there is great, unrecognized, recent 
classical / orchestral music out there (I wouldn't know, it's not my area 
of interest/expertise).

But by "pops", I meant orchestras that played Beatles songs or Andrew Loyd 
Weber or John Williams soundtracks at the fireworks display.  Good 
songs?  Yeah, probably.  "Great classical orchestral music"?  Hell no.  But 
recent music nonetheless, so I excluded them from my "99%".

>As for your music, don't be so sure I'd dislike it (though you do
>bolster my point about Wiard being primarily intended for certain
>uses).  When's your next performance? I'm local, remember? :-)

Unfortunately, I recently quit the regularly-gigging band I played bass 
(+MOTM) in (there's a 7" the modular's on) ... the modular was entirely 
foot-controlled, for non-melodic noisemaking.  Modular made the most sense 
(besides the fact that I already had it) since a monosynth doesn't allow 
for multiple patches to be set up and easily selected via (mostly) the 
input mixer knobs that are thoughtfully-provided on the MOTM filters (and 
the MOTM pedal interface module is great), and the alternative would be, 
uh, I guess, MIDI.  Which I'd have to learn and sounds to me like a 
convoluted procedure than a modular to get the sounds I want. And as I 
said, I'm an amateur/hobbyist, not a professional - I do this for fun.  As 
John L pointed out, patching a modular is much more fun (and, in his words, 
a better "real-time control surface") than working through a 
digital/computer interface.

I haven't done a Wiard gig in a while (since december, I think, with Temple 
of Bon Matin), but I'll try to remember to post here next time I 
do.  Fortunately, it's currently getting used in the studio regularly with 
other people.  (John, seriously, given the opinions you've expressed about 
"art" and "beauty", you would probably find most of the music I've worked 
on to be offensive [some of it probably could be characterized as the aural 
equivalent of "dog crap on canvas"], and the remainder to be trite and 
dull.  But you're certainly welcome the next time I perform, and if there's 
another bay area modular get-together, feel free to try out some melodic 
patches on my Wiard [since Peake monopolized it last time, trying out 
different envelope curves] - you supply the keyboard and MIDI/CV, though.)

"Primarily Intended for certain kind(s) of music" I'll certainly grant you 
(although I wouldn't want to secondarily-guess Grant's - or Don's - 
intentions).  Just not "... they were limited to one kind of music" 
(1225).  Fair enough?

         -Doug
          jasret@mindspring.com