Head Light

In the last CD review I took a drive with Trance Mission. This time I’m taking a spin in their third model from 1996. There’s no doubt, Trance Mission has an identity. They have a feel and a style you can recognize from a distance. It’s no secret that an artist’s style is like one’s personal handwriting. It’s the unique combination of elements that blend together making his or her work distinguishable from the crowd. Take Picasso for example. There’s a certain way in which he draws a line that’s similar through all his work, from his early years, through his Cubist phase with Braque, and on to his later years. It even shows up in his sculpture. His unique way of shaping forms tells you, even before you read the signature, “That’s a Picasso.” Most artists are recognizable by their individual way of drawing, or applying paint, or their melodic/harmonic structure, or compositional construction; by repeated elements that thread through their work to bind together a one-of-a-kind style. It becomes evident, too, that artists without a clearly, easily distinguishable style won’t get as much attention, or fame. Artists whose talents are multifaceted are shunned. Art collectors, gallery operators, museum curators unconsciously clutch onto strong identifying styles. Something by which they can prop up their judgement, and pin with the label “important.”

But there’s another aspect of style that is not recognized. Style is a double-edged sword. The talent that forges style is a set of habits, learned, developed, and innate, that the artist cannot escape. That collection of traits is not actually genius. The style that says “Hemingway,” “Matisse,” “Mozart,” “Adams,” or “Trance Mission” is actually a set of limitations. Limitations the artist is bound and gagged by, and unable to break free. It’s the prison cell where we can reliably find an artist. Conversely, there are those whose talent is in imitation. Those who are able to impersonate almost perfectly other styles. They don’t get respect. They haven’t developed their own view point, and therefore, invisible. Artists struggle with this dichotomy. Some go so far into contriving a unique identity that in the attempt they lose sight of their own self, and the purpose of art.

However, originality isn’t all original. It’s an illusive blend of the familiar and the foreign, the anticipated and the unexpected, the conventional and the revolutionary. Talent hides at the fulcrum between the known and the unknown. This may explain why Trance Mission only produced four albums. They were beginning to play out their teeter-totter of new and old, and becoming too predictable. Yet, to see one’s own limits, and pull the plug, shows real talent. To know when a work or series is finished is part of what separates the good from the great. The good keep on repeating themselves, the great know how to self edit and move on.

There are packages of originality on Head Light. Here are a few shining examples—

Head Light—

Alpha Swim—

In Frog Pyjamas—

Since the ’90s the members have moved on. Stephen Kent has moved on to do solo albums, collaborations with other musicians, and performs around the world. Beth Custer continues to teach and play in the Bay Area with her own Beth Custer Ensemble, and with Clarinet Thing. John Loose still plays an assortment of drums and drumming styles, and he’s also moved into surround sound and HD video production at Dolby Labs. Kenneth Newby seems to have retreated back to the great white north and evaded the grid—little web presence to be found.

Although Trance Mission hasn’t released a recording in recent years, they do occasionally regroup to perform in San Fransisco. (Don’t know if Newby joins them. Sometimes it’s listed as the Trance Mission Trio.) Check out their schedule on Beth’s website.

[Beth Custer]
[Stephen Kent]
[John Loose]
The review of their second release : [Auto Motive]

(||) Rating — Music : A ║ Performance : A ║ Recording : A ║
 Trance Mission, Head Light, City of Tribes, 1996

Posted in Creativity, Discover, Music reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Modern Life

The scientific method and the advances that emerge from it show us new ways to understand the world. The promises of science and technology have been burgeoning since the age of enlightenment. They give us the means for taking more control of our world. And they’ve been building through a positive feedback loop that continues at an increasing number of revolutions per generation. There is evidence that the ancient Romans had everything in place to be the first to develop the scientific method and to have initiated the march of modern technology, but regrettably, political failure and superstitious interference lead to the Dark Ages instead. Science had to wait for the Renaissance. The revolution in technology since then has been mindbogglingly spectacular. For over 99% of the two million year history of hominins, our ancestors have been subsistence hunting & gathering. In a mere two hundred years we’ve gone from outhouses to supercomputing, and in the process gained huge amounts of efficiency in a blooming flash of timesaving, comfort providing, security giving technology.

Where have all the flowers gone? All these modern labor saving tools and technological advances should be giving us more time for leisure; more time for travel and new experiences; more time to read, to learn, to think, to experiment; more time to strengthen our social bonds and civic involvement; more time for art, theater, literature, dance, music; more time to create and recreate.

The fruits of modern life were showing positive results through the mid 20th century. The workweek was reduced to five days, eight hours each; contrasted to a hundred years ago when the Industrial Age Robber Barons subjected workers to six-day workweeks, ten to twelve hours a day, and zero weeks of vacation. Sick days, maternity leave, personal days, pension plans eventually became the norm. But these gains are being slowly chipped away, and more than is immediately apparent. Some of the losses are hidden, for instance, most households used to have one income earner. Today most have two. Married couples typically work between 55 to 70 hours a week, so while one earner working 40 hours used to be able to support the household, it now takes two wage earners putting in 35-75% more time. Official average workweek for the US is just under 35 hours including part-time workers. Considering only full-time workers the average is 46 hours—38% report working 50 hours or more. Note also, those are working hours at one’s employment. They don’t count the hours you work at home, cooking, cleaning, managing necessities, or another overlooked time-drain that should be counted as work time, your commute. Add in an average 30 minute commute and 1.5 hours a day for personal/household work and you’re working over 60 hours a week. Lower wage workers often put in more time with a second job to make up for pay that’s sorely lagging behind the cost of living. And I suspect these statistics are only counting hours per worker at a single job, not taking into account those holding multiple jobs. Whereas unemployment may have declined since the banking meltdown of 2008, underemployment is rising to record highs.

Studies of hunter-gatherers reveal they work only a few hours a day, averaging about 24 hours a week. That’d be a three day work week for us. Hunter-gatherers work less, play more, and we, with our mountains of modern timesaving conveniences, work two and a half times as much. Our time savings keep going back into more work, longer hours, less recreation. Consider, too, how we got these advances. It wasn’t from working for a living. It was from people who had free time—time to dream, time to experiment, time spent not on subsistence, but on inquiry, discovery, deep thought, personal interests. Think, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Curie, inquisitive people who had time to spend on research that had no immediate purpose. It was from curiosity driven slackers like them who dove into examining the world for nothing more than the pleasure of discovery.

Why are we working more and living less? Where are the efficiency gains going? Why haven’t employers reduced work hours and increased pay? Who’s hoarding the gains? Who’s keeping more than their fair share? Have we entered a new era—the era of the Information Age Robber Barons?

One solution could be a “Just Say No” policy. Say no to more hours. Say no to a $150 cable bill for commercial TV. Say no to working for less, and being asked to give more, and give up more. Say no to the latest, newest, fastest. . . Say no to spending more on more stuff. Say no to being sucked into the maelstrom of the consumer consumption trap.

And a “Just Say Yes” policy. Say yes to play. Say yes to playing something that doesn’t require a payment. Say yes to a walk in the woods, a game of cards, an evening at home with friends—food and drinks on the table, TV dark and silent. Say yes to having fun. Say yes to taking control of time—your time. Say yes to reaping the benefits of the modern world.

A look at [play theory].
Consider this [Slave Computers].

Posted in Discover, Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment