08.59
Rising 06.00.
Morning exercising down the garden, then to the Study.
Morning reading and writing…
Morning listening: Hanns Jelinek, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra with Daniel Barenboim.
Then, c. 08.42, a tap on the back of my head: how had Toyah crept into the Study to make me jump? Then, was it that large fly, buzzing around yesterday? And then, acknowledging a presence that had passed by and said hello. This is a very active house, with many presences coming and going since we have lived here.
Reflecting: in recent discussion with Dr. Andrew Keeling, on a concern for the whole of a musical event, in presenting a piece of music to listeners/audients.
I’m not sure to what extent music-lovers believe that a primary motivation of their favourite musician/s is the contribution that player makes to a piece of music, album, group undertaking. Or, conversely, the piece/event as a vehicle for the player’s self-expression: i.e. the music exists to serve the musician.
This in distinction to the musician serves the music, as expressed by Jamie Muir and quoted by Dr. Billy B.
My experience in King Crimson: even where the player is committed to the group, it is difficult to work with someone who sees the music as a vehicle for their own playing. In a recording session, listening to a mix, their performance tends to never be quite as prominent/featured as it should/might be. Worse, where that player takes it upon themself to supervise the mix. Harder still is working with a player committed primarily to their own career and perceived self-interest. How to present the musical event as a whole when there are preferential hearings and incompatible aims?
So a question please for interested, innocent audients out there: does it matter to you if the musician/s you love privilege their own performance/career over the group endeavour?
12.37 I Advance Masked – Day Seventy One…
16.12 Early afternoon down the garden…
And to the Cellar for practicing.
19.03 Today’s main writing focus: The Guitar Circle - Chapter Seven: Aphorisms.
