deathtokoalas
so, like.....every song is exactly the same algorithm of single phrase 4/4 loops building up until they just.....stop?
the limits of this technology are pretty apparent, which is why ideas like process music, strategies and frippertronics were developed. it seems kind of boneheaded to just ignore this in favour of doing exactly what the innovators dreaded would be done.
but, maybe it was inevitable. and maybe 95% of the hundreds of kids doing this (and there are hundreds of kids doing this, and there has been for years) don't know who steve reich was, anyways.
there's some alright ideas in here. it's a shame that he's using such a boring means of expressing them.
can you make an interesting piece of music by yourself in real time with nothing but a guitar, a loop machine and a bunch of effects pedals?
no.
now, stop thinking you can.
Conor Chaney
You are really going after Dustin Wong
deathtokoalas
he was in town that week...
deathtokoalas
actually, i think the fripps & belews of the world would be rather disappointed by how simplistic this is.
Dave Ellis
Simple =/= bad.
Besides, this reminds more of minimalists like Steve Reich that Fripp.
deathtokoalas
in general, simple does not equal bad, but in this case it does.
there's no process in this...
ok, maybe there's a vague idea of process in this in the way the pedals are used, but it's not musical in nature and is consequently not well compared to reich.
i was reacting to the several comments that were comparing this to fripp, which likely meant his work with eno, and i do think it's a more accurate comparison than to reich. but, they were ironically less constrained with their technology at the time; they had far more flexible tools at their disposal, because they built them for what they wanted rather than picked them up, mass produced, on a shelf. the result was a far more interesting use of the technology.
don't get me wrong - i'd like to hear some guitarists pick up on that sort of thing. guitar playing has become very technically driven, and it's created a lot of boring results. there's more flexible uses to the instrument than as a blunt means to ape a lot of violin solos. i try to do a little bit of that myself, even.
but, this guy is just not getting beyond the basic level of abstraction that comes with looping phrases together.
looking at his biography, it's surprising that i'd never heard of virgil moorefield before yesterday. well, the name is vaguely familiar, but i couldn't have placed it to anything. however, the biography (along with a bit of youtube sleuthing) made it clear that i'd better show up, as that slice of the history of new york's music scene is really exactly precisely where my brain lives.
he was performing a new piece, and while i got the impression that the band might not be entirely into it yet, i have to point out that it was a little bit generic in terms of minimalist post-rock, broken only by the inclusion of a sax player. it swayed and rocked like you'd expect it would, but that's just it: very predictable. there wasn't really anything new to it. the melodic lines weren't anything much to react to, either. it's one thing to be predictable and be good, it's another to be predictable and sort of mediocre at it.
listen. it happens. there are beethoven pieces that flat out suck. i wasn't going to make too much of a judgment on the basis of one piece.
the second piece (apparently a reinstrumentation of "i wish i'd thought of it sooner") was a lot more creative. it definitely exists in the space i referenced, but it was noisy and erratic and just overall worked very well.
the third piece (the one posted) was somewhere in between, in that it went back to the predictability of the first piece while maintaining some of the excitement of the second. it was more along the lines of being predictable and good. but, there were also some jazzy curve balls in there.
overall? i didn't get the same kind of raw power i get out of swans, the atonal mess of zorn, the messy dynamics of branca or even the glacial harmonies of steve reich. what i heard tonight was kind of reaching into all these places and pulling a little out of all of them without really hitting any serious high points. i didn't hear anything to define virgil moorefield, so much as i heard a lot of bits of things i'm familiar with from elsewhere - none of it really put together in a way that really grabbed me. i'm sure there's far more to his work than i heard tonight...
....but i can't help but think it was a good explanation of how i could be so into so much of what came out of that scene without having ever heard of him.
that being said? it was worth the $10. i'm glad i went, and i'd make the same choice next time. maybe i'll check out some more of his work in the meantime hoping to find the best of it...
