This is a less sophisticated but perhaps more sonically interesting version of what Brian Eno was
doing with records like "Music for Airports." I guess it's a semi-interesting soundscape, for a few
minutes. I guess if noise is music, then it's music. I maintain that it's not commercially viable,
which is why this guy never had a real record deal. I also maintain there was much more interesting
and viable music being made in the same era. On the other hand, it's just music, so to each their
own. I guess it's a good thing people who are drawn to such things can readily enjoy it via YouTube
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Records Ruin the Landscape
> If that guitar and humming was the only thing Flynt had ever done, I think
> you're right that he would have a deserved obscurity. But that's not his
> most loved work, which would probably be the Celestial Power tape:
> Despite any flaws of recording, this piece has amazing resonance when
> played from a good stereo in a large room instead of from utube on a
> His odd "back porch hillbilly blues" makes sense in the light of his other
> work. Distortion and blurring of the guitar sound isn't a mistake, it's the
> background he wanted for the droning, chanting vocals. The 'hillbilly
> blues' tag is a joke, a purposefully misleading title. He's not trying to
> work in any genre, so comparison to commercially viable recordings is
> missing the point. That piece may be more concept than music, but I find
> other music he made to be very beautiful as music, not only as concept.
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> Let's be clear, this is the "artiste" discussed in the essay:
>> If 15 minutes of the same 3 chords with often out of tune humming along is
>> your thing, then have at it. Many people play acoustic guitar into a
>> portable home recorder. Very few of those recordings are worth hearing.
>> Almost none of them are worth canonized as "undiscovered gold."
>> I understand the frustration with modern commercialized popular music, but
>> the modern impulse (often by younger writers with little historical
>> perspective, writers "born digital" and raised on digital pop music glop)
>> to "discover" performers from what is glorified as a "wonderful past," many
>> of whom don't really deserve to be canonized, is annoying. It seems to be
>> an academic, navel-gazing pursuit. And, it smacks of ignorance, of not
>> listening to enough commercially-released music from the same time periods.
>> That sort of listening will often reveal that there were many excellent
>> examples in the selected genre, musicians who could actually play and thus
>> make commercially viable recordings.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WS" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:35 PM
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Records Ruin the Landscape
>> The link below is an excerpt (published in WIRE magazine) from David
>>> upcoming book called "Records Ruin The Landscape".
>>> I thought it might be of interest to some ARSCLIST members, as it explores
>>> the implications of recorded material from an earlier era that only finds
>>> audience much later than it was created.