"darw_n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the lack of soul, is indeed the true beauty of it all. The goal is
not to be compelled to understand richie, the goal is to be compelled by
what you put into the music while listening...
The modernists were onto this, but their pride got in the way
("ahhh, these damn viewers don't understand my art!!!") and they wanted
everyone to see there emotions instead...
one of the big ideas of modernism was formalism though...a good
example would be Mondrian's geometric compositions in primary colors
plus black and white. There really is an aesthetic experience to be
had, rhythms, tensions, releases, etc., and it's all quite beside the
point of "happy/sad/soulful/the thing it reminds me of, etc."
the thing about (expecially non-vocal) music is that it's always been
like that. I mean, sure, there's music that has "happy/sad/soul/no
soul/the thing it reminds me of, etc." but a lot of it, in
practically every genre really works in a "musical" way, which is to
say that there's a pleasure in the arrangement of the sounds.
And so I would say Ritchie Hawtin's music tends to be "musical" or
abstract, giving pleasure in its arrangements of sounds and neither
concealing nor attempting to explain his soul.
kurt
