Group: Super Admins
Joined: Dec. 1999
||Posted: Mar. 12 2003, 11:09
I'd say that Mike's been doing more re-interpreting, in regards to Tubuar Bells. Perfecting his technique perhaps, but I think it would be a silly exercise in rewording to say that artists don't wish to perfect their technique ('improving their ability to interpret' you could say...same thing looked at from a different angle if you ask me). Tubular Bells II and III are definitely re-interpretations of the ideas than perfected versions of them. What bracket TBR goes into could again come down to a silly battle of definition...it could be an attempt to better his interpretation...
Tubular Bells could be split in half - indeed, this is what Mike has done - into a composition and a performance. I think that Mike's argument may be that any 'art' is in the music and that the original performance (and the performance could be seen as an interpretation of the composition, as it is when a classical musician performs a pre-existing work) detracts from that. The other side of the argument is to say that the piece developed in the studio and as a result the composition and performance are forever linked, and to split them is to remove something crucial...
It's true that when one of us says 'art', we mean a certain thing. That's often a subjective thing though, as words tend to end up meaning different things to different people...
Look in the Oxford English Dictionary and we'll find, amongst other definitions, these:
|The application of skill to subjects of taste, as poetry, music, dancing, the drama, oratory, literary composition, and the like; esp. in mod. use: Skill displaying itself in perfection of workmanship, perfection of execution as an object in itself.|
|The application of skill to the arts of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the cultivation of these in its principles, practice, and results; the skilful production of the beautiful in visible forms.|
Those are the two I felt most relevant to our context - if you feel I may be overlooking something more relevant, take a look for yourself...
I think that both of those definitions apply to a lot of Mike's work (though this depends on what we feel perfection is, and what we find to be skilful and beautiful).
Dictionary definitions are about as objective as we're ever going to get, but how many of us agree that those definitions describe what we feel art to be? (incidentally, most other dictionaries appear to give similar definitions, though I've not tried them all...I'd rather this didn't turn into 'battle of the dictionaries' ).
Anyway, I still don't feel that a painter and any other kind of 'artist' are doing anything different - both are using various tools, building blocks, to take something from their heads (whether that thing is an interpretation of something that's been seen, or an idea that's seemingly sprung from nowhere...though I'd say that they never spring from nowhere, even though it may seem they have) and bring it into a tangible form.
As for cover versions, I think they're far from a waste of time - nothing beats the thrill of playing Amarok on kazoo and ukulele...