The journey continues

Is that a valid question? I don't understand the reason for asking it, or rather, it seems like a non sequitur to me.

The perspective I'm coming from is that yes, everything is interpretive. This checks out in music; in the classical/jazz realm, someone performs someone else's piece, and they do it in such and such a way, and it's their "interpretation", and rightly described as so. In the pop realm, it's simply called a "cover". Even when an artist wants to "remain faithful" to the original, they still add their own style to the work, even if they're actively attempting to minimize this effect. And that's totally fine.

As far as an "original" painting, I don't find that to be particularly important (from this perspective I'm taking) but I guess you could look to non-representational art. But even that could be said to be "interpretive" of aspects of reality; logical structure in Mondrian, for instance. He was very philosophically preoccupied.

It's not a copy because it's an interpretation. A painter inevitably interprets a still life with their own style, regardless of how "realistic" their interpretation; even the degree to which their interpretation is realistic is a factor of their style. And style determines interpretation. Just off the top of my head, dunno if that made sense.

I haven't been this far down a weird music rabbit hole since...college? Not sure what's happening to me but I'm not complaining.

Haha. Sadly no, Kimbra is not essential...I like her music, and that's my favorite track of hers, but it's atypical for her. But as far as vaguely neo-soul-inflected pop goes, she's pretty solid.

NiN on the other hand...essential, no matter your taste. But at the same time, it's not for everyone...

I do. :joke:

Essential regardless of your music taste, in my view.

A friend of mine featured a track of mine from my ambient project Sixty Ton Angel on this guest mix.

https://cashmereradio.com/episode/transience-32-with-lou-drago-and-forest-management/

Cool that the juggling balls ended up serving some purpose. I was just making a dumb joke about "I see" and "Ice-y". Pay no mind. Impressive that it was done digitally. Reminds me of the continuously more blurred line between analog and digital synthesis in music production. :chin:

It's rare these days for an album new to me to really get under my skin, but this one keeps giving. (less whispering here @jamalrob)

Fair enough. I just love that bassline and how Don sounds like he's being run through Frippertronics or something.

Stunning, @The Opposite

I see eyeballs. (Ice-y eyeballs?)

Exactly. :ok:

This shit sucks

I could care less

lol!

No, it's not my preference that "free of" is negative and "free to" is positive; it's just grammatically correct.

"Free of" is negative; "free to" is positive. "Free" is by nature a positive concept.

I'm suggesting that the OP framing of "free of" could potentially be the wrong way to frame the free will question.

What about free to?

:cry:

That's different, though, from saying people should give up on exploring the options, just because they probably won't make any progress that hasn't already been made by someone else before; or worse still, that there's something wrong with a person who would dare even try that. — Pfhorrest

If this is all you're frustrated with, then, of course, stuff the naysayers. Feel it roll off your back as you continue forward.

It's actually less common to find in the music/art world; innovation and newness are names of the game in my world, so I find it odd to encounter something like what @TheQuestioner is saying. He just sounds disillusioned, which I don't think is the same motivation behind your philosophical naysayers.

As to fossilization of understanding being good...yes and no. Falling into a mystical pit of everything and nothing isn't healthy, but neither is the fossilization of your understanding to the point that you cordon off legitimate paths, causing blind spots that you'll have a hard time undoing. This is what I see the most of in philosophy. To use extremes, it's the analytic who can't even entertain the theoretical possibility of something mystical (either out of fear or hubris), and likewise it's the religious figure who can't engage scientific enquiry because he's afraid it will destroy his worldview.

I've felt very discouraged in a similar vein to this from people on this forum regarding the creation of philosophy, not music. Like an attitude of "how dare you be so arrogant to think you could ever possibly come up with anything better than what others have already come up with before you." Okay, so I guess everybody ought to just give up at everything forever starting yesterday, because the odds of anyone ever improving on anything are so low, and it's unforgivable arrogance to even act like it might be possible, by trying. — Pfhorrest

I think 99% of us are susceptible to the fossilization of our understanding, whether of music or philosophy or whatever, as we grow older. It's rare to meet anyone who can maintain a child-like, open-ended (creative, really) mind. I'm 31 and worried that I'm on the event horizon myself...maybe being self-conscious of it's onset can help ward it off?...

Unfortunately, the following comment is false: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".
On Soundcloud and Youtube, there are thousands of "honest songs" that millions of hours were spent creating, and there is very little audience for 99.99% of them. — TheQuestioner

Sure, it's a pithy statement, but what evidence can you give that the soundcloud and youtube artists are "honest" in their work? It's a qualitative concept that's hard to define in any substantive way, so I think the statement rings true within it's context: two trusted, "honest" friends who both respect one another's work, and consider it to be honest work. So between the two of us, we know what was meant by "an honest song". There will always be an audience for a Leonard Cohen, for a Pink Floyd. And if you're response is that "there's no more good artists like that around", look to hip hop and rap; Kendrick Lamar for instance.

How do we feel about ouillée? It's pronounced "oo yay!"

1. Musical satisfaction: I have hundreds of CD's in every musical style, including jazz, classical, and every style of rock. Nothing that I can create could ever compete with this library. I can't create something that sounds better than Dark Side of the Moon, or Abbey Road. — TheQuestioner

You're a more experienced musician than me, so I shouldn't have to remind you that this mindset is the antithesis to the creative urge itself. Do you think Pink Floyd started the recording sessions for Dark Side thinking "we have to make a record that's better than Abbey Road"?

Once a few years ago I was making complaints similar to yours to a close musician friend of mine, and his simple response always stuck with me: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".

Pivot to political thread you haven't been lambasted in yet. More at 4am.

Since it's the American election I just assumed we were talking about it.

Sorry. I figure some actual anecdotal observations are better than musings from across the pond.

As I re-read the post I made, I realize this is anecdotal evidence, not "more than anecdotal". Oh well.

To your point, the "typical conservatives" I know in the town where I grew up are not "good at divorcing people from subjects". They are very emotionally intelligent people. They comprise a very tight knit community of people who all have very similar values. As to "what they want", they want that tight knit community to remain in place. I don't agree with them politically, but this is the most balanced picture I can paint of them. <edited out the cheesy last sentence>