stuff

[hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)]

Is anyone familiar with the mail order outfit from Zurich, Switzerland
called Art Tape/Red West? They just sent me a mouth-watering catalog
with tons of live tapes (I'm talking oodles of Joy Division, Cramps,
Swans, Sonic Youth, Chrome, Art Bears etc). However, they have these
cryptic numbers that look like prices for each tape, and it's not clear
what currency they're in. Also there is no information on postage, and
the note I got mumbled something about trading, but not prices. 
What's the deal here?

BTW, what's the status on the Kate Bush covers conspiracy? I assume
Greg Taylor's organizing this again (the hand of experience and all that)?
I hope the deadline is not for a month yet... I'm working as fast as
I can on Wuthering Heights (which will not be a hardcore version,
Jonathan...)

>Really-From: Mark Katsouros <KATSOURO@UMDD>

>Give me a break.  Please.  I'm quite familiar with "the real thing", thank you
>both.  And the title of this piece makes it obvious that Emerson is not trying
>to pass it off as a "new thing", but instead, a performance of the
>traditional.  

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Emerson is trying to write a
"real" piano concerto. Hence his piece should be judged by the standards
of its genre. It fails because he clings to a traditional form without
saying anything new, the same reason why late Bruch is not performed much
anymore (he was very conservative and repeated himself after a few
youthful "hits") and late neo-classical Stravinsky is not considered to
be as interesting as early, young-turk Stravinsky.

>Hell, Sting literally stole a Sergei Prokofiev theme for his
>"Russians", but so what?  It's a hell of a song.  Have you really listened to
>Emerson's concerto?  I mean really listened?  That's one complex, nicely done,
>traditional piece of music.  Hell, I wish I could sound a tenth as dramatic on
>the piano.  Perhaps I'm judging the piece from an entirely different
>perspective.  Perhaps I'm overwhelmed by how difficult it seems to play such a
>piece.  Just listen to the layers in the second movement.  

[This is not a flame. Repeat, this is not a flame.]
OK, I've said this many times, and I'll say it one last time. 

1) I have nothing against musical quotations, found sounds, etc. If you
   know my musical tastes, you'll know that I enjoy sound collage things.
   I think it's fine that Sting stole a Prokofiev theme. It's also
   fine that the Beasty Boys stole tons of Led Zep riffs. (This is not
   to imply I like Sting's song, but for the record I do enjoy BBs.)
   They took the musical quotation *out of context* and did something
   interesting with it. If the BBs had made a Led Zep-clone song, I
   doubt that I'd like their recent record as much.

2) I have nothing against building on old ideas. I feel that there
   are two ways of making that interesting. You can make a recreation
   of the original that's so perfect that it's scary. This is what
   Plan 9 does with psychedelia in their best stuff. Or you can
   totally pervert it, mangle it, take it out of context, and build
   something new from it. Emerson does neither in his piano concerto;
   he tried to write a piece in a traditional and possibly outmoded
   medium, without revitalizing it with new ideas.

3) Emerson's piano concerto is difficult. I would not dream of learning
   it, even back when I used to play outside the piano and not stick
   things inside the strings :-). However, there are many other 
   extremely difficult piano pieces written decades before Emerson's,
   which are more innovative in terms of texture, technique, 
   figurations, tone color etc. Technique is only one small component
   of the traditional classical musician's tools. Emerson's music
   does not speak with his own voice, in the way that Sorabji, Scriabin,
   and Crumb's piano music does.

Sorry about boring all of you. We can all go back to working on our 
Kate Bush covers now...

Bill