cut!
i think musicians are vastly too precious–its because they dont give themselves footage.–imagine if there were no numbers, no logic and no shapes–then mathematicians would be so precious and tetchy about every scrap in their constructions because unique reality is lost if you spill something. fortunately they can spool through the footage of the number line, of standard proofs and of topologies , grab what they want and cull whats less appropriate- some other cat will sweep through the cutting room floor one day and find their particular treasure and repeat the process., when music was like a form letter you could hot rod it by adding accessories from other music- or your own. vavalidi is like this- a huge pool of gestures and forms- so is handel, haydn — mozart especially- you could probably scramble mozart and nobody would notice. romantic music is more sensitive to cutting only because its dramatic and a narrative- but a composer like mahler repeats the same narrative ten times -so you could probably shuffle his movements together without much violence. same deal with ives and debussy who are like thesaures of themselves.
architects dont fret if you ask for another bedroom and you could probably make sugar man again from your trashed cuttings if the present one were lost. webern and mondrian i can understand- because they had pared things down to almost vanishing and everything depends on secondary things like balance and sequence- but minimalists are like soap operas- you get the plot whenever you drop in. artists who repeat ought to expect cuts in performance - its the feldman fetish of imagining they are capturing time literally that makes them think you’re amputating or castrating the piece.
inside a neutron star processes occur millions of time faster than in our tardy chemical universe - in the time taken to write this mail they have had a rise and fall of a roman empire- so who cares about a few cuts?
Leave a Reply