An Unknowable Master
I wrote that thing yesterday about Hype Machine and versioning and my friend, Stan Harrison, sent me the following email. My sense is that Stan got to a truth that is closer than my inarticulate rambling and I really loved what he had to say. First, that pop music, through the Internet and Hype Machine, is experiencing something akin to what’s been real in jazz for a long time. Second, that all of these versions of songs refer to a kind of platonic notion – they are all shadows projected onto the cave walls and only allude to a godlike truth but never specifically articulate it.
In the jazz world, alternate takes abound and every performance is yet another iteration. It’s Plato’s Cave once again. Maybe all performances are shadows of an unknowable master take.
That felt like what I was trying to say and kind of what I referenced when I wrote that songs need rust. Stan said it better than me though. Read the whole email after the jump. If you don’t know, Stan plays a million different instruments (mostly horns though right?), has played with the all-time greats (Bowie, Radiohead, and many many others) and is also just a really nice person with a beautiful family. And he ‘s playing with The Flying Change at The Living Room on September 3rd. One more great reason to make it to the show Okay okay. Here’s the email:
I just wanted to share a thought or two. I really enjoy your writing and appreciate the degree to which you analyze what you experience – your enlightened approach is one of the things that makes your music so special.In terms of Hype Machine, I think it’s a great idea to be able to experience different versions of the same song at one central site and here are my thoughts in response to your saying you don’t know what that means.The meaning, of course, can be as fluid as the the potential variety in one iteration (the master but not necessarily) of a song. The information presented is rich but it is up to the listener to derive what he or she may. It DOES make it a lot easier that all is in one place.I might be a bit off here in that, for me, the meaning is basic and not that varied. In simple terms: The idea of one instance of a song being the only thing that is the song, the only thing that the title of that song refers to, is wrong. This leads to discussions about identity – what is it that makes anything (or person) be identifiable as that thing or person. What is “is”. You’ve obviously studied philosophy – you are certainly living in a philosophically tinged world (I like that) – and you touch on questions central to aspects of existence.One interesting thing: this site is capable of opening up the minds of pop music listeners to something jazz and classical listeners (and performers) have been aware of since day one. Pop performers are aware as well but I’ve never seen this put into words as it relates to this area.In the jazz world, alternate takes abound and every performance is yet another iteration. It’s Plato’s Cave once again. Maybe all performances are shadows of an unknowable master take.In the classical world I find it just as intense, in terms of the search for the “it”. A couple of years ago I took a conducting class and, even though I was aware of this for years, it really hit home that the score (even scores that are highly notated with every conceivable direction) was more often than not a guide rather than a set of immutable instructions. If you listen any two performances of the same piece, especially when conducted by different conductors but sometimes with the only difference being the year the piece was recorded you will possibly hear things so radically different it is hard to imagine the same score was used.I love this. One of the problems with the advent of recording is the etching in stone of what a piece of music is. One solution is to take the time to hear live music performed by musicians who don’t try to recreate their records (this is great for music as well as a band’s finances in that each performance is unique). The other is to be exposed to sites like Hype Machine that remind one or show one for the first time that music is fluid. It’s also great because it forces one to think and make decisions which involve quality and taste. Personally I learn more about wine, food, actually anything, when I have the opportunity to compare and contrast.In the end, Certs is a breath mint AND a candy.See you soon,StanHi Sam,
In terms of Hype Machine, I think it’s a great idea to be able to experience different versions of the same song at one central site and here are my thoughts in response to your saying you don’t know what that means.
The meaning, of course, can be as fluid as the the potential variety in one iteration (the master but not necessarily) of a song. The information presented is rich but it is up to the listener to derive what he or she may. It DOES make it a lot easier that all is in one place.
I might be a bit off here in that, for me, the meaning is basic and not that varied. In simple terms: The idea of one instance of a song being the only thing that is the song, the only thing that the title of that song refers to, is wrong. This leads to discussions about identity – what is it that makes anything (or person) be identifiable as that thing or person. What is “is”. You’ve obviously studied philosophy – you are certainly living in a philosophically tinged world (I like that) – and you touch on questions central to aspects of existence.
One interesting thing: this site is capable of opening up the minds of pop music listeners to something jazz and classical listeners (and performers) have been aware of since day one. Pop performers are aware as well but I’ve never seen this put into words as it relates to this area.
In the jazz world, alternate takes abound and every performance is yet another iteration. It’s Plato’s Cave once again. Maybe all performances are shadows of an unknowable master take.
In the classical world I find it just as intense, in terms of the search for the “it”. A couple of years ago I took a conducting class and, even though I was aware of this for years, it really hit home that the score (even scores that are highly notated with every conceivable direction) was more often than not a guide rather than a set of immutable instructions. If you listen any two performances of the same piece, especially when conducted by different conductors but sometimes with the only difference being the year the piece was recorded you will possibly hear things so radically different it is hard to imagine the same score was used.
I love this. One of the problems with the advent of recording is the etching in stone of what a piece of music is. One solution is to take the time to hear live music performed by musicians who don’t try to recreate their records (this is great for music as well as a band’s finances in that each performance is unique). The other is to be exposed to sites like Hype Machine that remind one or show one for the first time that music is fluid. It’s also great because it forces one to think and make decisions which involve quality and taste. Personally I learn more about wine, food, actually anything, when I have the opportunity to compare and contrast.
In the end, Certs is a breath mint AND a candy.
See you soon,
Stan
Pretty spot-on in my opinion.
-
snoopdogthe1
