Oh boy it's been a long time since my last post......
"we're all in trouble, you know",
a fellow musician said to me last night.
We were on the topic of improvised music, and he mentioned an article he'd read that "all music should appeal to the composer, player and improviser in everyman". My friend's point being that he thought we were all screwed, due to the usual moderately well attended gig.
Two thoughts about this...the first, probably my least favorite word: 'should'.
This is a word usual used by people trying to sell an idea. Occasionally it's used out of genuine consideration for someone else. Usually, and particularly in critique circles it seems, the word is used because someone feels that something is 'wrong'. If you've ever checked out Cognitive Behaviour Therapy you'll know this already. For those of you that haven't, 'should' is something people often use to make others, or themselves, feel bad about what's happening currently.
The second, the assumption that 'everyman' is the goal towards which artists strive. Obviously for someone who's ever thought about the role of art seriously must realise how ridiculous this statement seems. As I said at the time: "that presumes that 'everyman' is right". Rather than dwell on whether they are or not, why not just work on making the most honest and informed art you can? I think when artists become concerned with what other people think more than what they think themselves they are doomed. I can't imagine this existence ending in any other way than hollowness and unhappiness.
There are plenty of people who create art that's enjoyed by much of the mainstream, but true artists don't create art to appeal to a specific demographics, they make art, and they make the art they make, because they can't imagine it any other way.
End of rave.
For anyone who's interested, I have a youtube channel, which has a couple a clips of me playing, including my latest trip of trying to play Elliott Carter's "Two Diversions" in time......here it is.
Bye for now...