From Britton James Sent Thu, Apr 2nd 1998, 23:56
From Britton James Sent Thu, Apr 2nd 1998, 23:56
> don't think a discussion of musical difficulty can evolve without > consciousness altering substances being introduced into the equation. > > Charlie James >> > > Does the same hold true to discussions of literary "difficulty"? I believe that in some cases it does hold true for literary difficulty. Timothy Leary suggests that re-programming the biocomputer can lead one out of habitual ways of percieving things in general, and this includes literature, food sex, you name it. Much depends on where the perciever starts out. While > consciousness altering substances can (and do) contribute much to the total > body experience of music for some, I'm talking about more than "body experience" when I relate the influence of psychedelics on a listener. It's more about "out of the body" experience, or metephysical experience. for others this is not possible and not > desired. I have no problem with this. In fact I am not preaching any doctines here. I sense defensiveness in your tone, and if I've brought that on I'm sorry. Yes, ingesting certain things may awake a deeper understanding of > certain areas of the music, For me it's not really about simply music, but a gateway effect, ala Terrance McKenna, or John Lilly, whereby the whole experience leads to palpable transcendance and personal growth. and it may be a bit of an insult to many who feel that > the music they create should create in us a "natural high" that needs no > supplement. If you are insulted by my suggestions, I think you should reconsider. Even music made in a state of utter sobriety can bring vast experience to the user of certain chemicals, and the reverse. Nothing is cut and dried. One mans floor is another mans ceiling, and we're all evolving. I do agree with the notion of natural high, though, and I recommend its persuit. Consciousness alteration can change the way we feel about that > music, but so also does mood, temperature, acoustics, and sundry other > influences we do not necessarily think of as influencing us. I think you need to give others more credit for what they see as influencing them. I think that we grow into seeing more closely what makes us act and react. In short, while > much of idm-ish music is created by artists who celebrate the creativity- > releasing side of drugs, it is ultimately a personal choice. I totally agree with you here, and I never meant to suggest anything else. Music as we consume it > in the western world is generally an individual activity, just as > consciousness altering supplements are. Tell that to the many people who ritually inbibe and then dance all night together at gatherings all over the world, which is a driving force behind which much of this music gets made in the first place. Remember Woodstock? Raves? It's a culture, it strives to link people. Club culture is a life boat for many otherwise isolated people. Your concept of western music sounds like a fine definition of our dead or dying classical tradition. For my own part, I see a big difference between drug use and drug abuse. Charlie James