From Dizzy J. Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 17:20
From Dizzy J. Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 17:20
> but what you seem to be doing is taking the work itself (song, film, etc) > as what is good, and not the artist behind it. for example, if i wrote a > book, and you took it completely out of context and really enjoyed _your_ > interpretation of it, then you would be viewing the work as good, and me > (as the author) as irrelevant to the work. when a piece is created (music, art, etc..) it takes on a life of its own. When that piece is consumed by others besides the creator, then it no longer lives in the single context of the creator, but in all the context of the people who have shared it. The meanings of a piece do not need to be the same to all people, nor do they need to be in the same context as the creator. I think one of the most flattering things for a musician is when someone mentions how a piece affected them, but in a completely way then the artist had originally meant it. At that moment, they should realize that the music is no longer solely "owned" (not talking copywrites). This does not render the artist irrelevant by any means, but I can certainly enjoy a song without liking the artist, and I can like a particular artist, but not enjoy a certain song. -dj