There seems to be some confusion regarding "emotion" - are we talking about the listener's emotion, or the creator's emotion??? Both Larry Heard and Armando seem to think that the producer's of the music need to feel certain emotions to create good work.
I don't buy it. Neither one have any idea what the creators of this music were feeling, they just take THEIR emotional response as LISTENERS and project it back onto the creators - ie. this piece doesn't move me, so the creator of it must have lacked emotion when he made it. I argue that what matters is the creator's skill. Listeners will tend to have an emotional response to a well constructed piece, but not necessarily a response that is unvarying or easy to describe. Autechre, for instance, makes me feel "something" but I'm not sure I could pin it into some simple emotional category. But it's not like I'm contemplating equations or something when I hear it, by any means. The music seems as emotional to my as anything else. I believe that much, even most, of the response to is rooted in the listener's mood, their environment, their cultural background, their own prejudices and their previous encounters with music. All these things are external to the music itself. Even for one individual, music might provoke different responses when sober as opposed to intoxicated, in different settings, etc. As for myself, I like interesting timbres, and I like interesting rhythms, and to me that is the definition of music: rhythm + timbre (pitch and harmony are, for me, subcategories of timbre). I'd hardly call this being "moved by novelty", but I don't believe there is emotion "in" the music. Usually abstract music does produce emotional responses in me, but I don't project them back onto the music itself. The emotions belong to ME, not to the music. As a final example, I like Mozart now, whereas in the past I really had no taste for that type of music, though I did intellectually "appreciate" it. Now, I enjoy Mozart's music, and I feel something when I hear it - but the music never changed. It was my ability to listen that changed. ~David > > It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer > than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without > caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass > anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert > anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you > will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people > wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's > country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something > that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I > think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in > England. Something like, "it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and > it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left > the message. That was really what the music was about though, the > message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no > message to it, no feeling." Or something like that. (come to think of > it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. > But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard > when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory > just this morning too. Dangit. > > KKS >
