 |
 |
I agree, and was not suggesting the contrary, but rather pointing to the difference between the grain of the voice and the swish of guitar strings. Put it this way: the grain of the voice is part of the musical sound of the voice as instrument. The swish of the guitar strings, from this point of view, is a form of noise. It is therefore cultivated by musics and by musicians aesthetically geared to the inclusion of noise, while those which aren't, try to exclude it. (Actually this is a very complex question, because the development of practically all branches of music over the twentieth century was a process of the reintroduction of noise.) However, there is one thing which the two have in common: neither are susceptible in the moment of performing or playing, to full conscious control. They have an unconscious of their own which is expressive beyond the musician's conscious skills. Like Lennon's rasped 'Twist and Shout' perhaps. Michael Chanan -----Original Message----- From: Henry Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 24 April 2006 10:01 Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY boom in view 'Twist And Shout' was recorded in just one take at the end of a very long session (iirc they did the whole LP in one day): Lennon's voice was ragged from that. In fact they *chose* to record 'Twist And Shout' *because* Lennon's ripped vocal chords would suit the track, and because they knew they'd get just one take before he lost his voice completely. I don't see how a voice could *not* have a 'grain' of some sort! * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **