The huge problem I see with the master/apprentice model is that it implies a shared tradition, which we totally lack. I’m not sure I know what the solution is, as the move towards greater and greater individual idiosyncrasy doesn’t seem to be slowing down. As John Cage said once (I’m paraphrasing) the history of art has evolved from there being several primary streams, to being in delta, to actually entering the ocean. There is no unifying force, and until that arises, I think your notion of each artist essentially fending for themselves via new technology is the best bet. I may be taking too totalizing a view though. Perhaps pockets of tradition will spring up, and with them the power of a more collective (rather than individualistic) approach to the arts, which is implied by the master/apprentice model, may start to be gradually unleashed, especially as its superiority is recognized. That being said, as someone whose musical tastes are quite diverse, I honestly don’t think a total mono-culture is the ideal either. In such a globalized world, it actually seems impossible. So it’s a very tricky problem. Just my thoughts at the moment. Great conversation!
We don’t totally lack a shared tradition! It’s there, but it needs to be invigorated, something higher education has not been providing. Students tell me all the time that they aren’t getting what they are looking for in their university degrees.
@ maybe “total lack” is an oversimplification. The seeds may be there, but the context is so different from their origins, I have a hard time imagining they could be planted in way that would lead to genuine growth. Perhaps I lack imagination. Perhaps I idealize the degree to which the past was homogeneous… but then again, you really don’t see the sheer diversity of stylistic trends in basically any prior century. We live in such insanely novel circumstances. Maybe I’m exaggerating that as well? I really don’t despair… I often lament the degree to which our culture seems to be in tatters, but there is also so much to be optimistic about. Who knows what will happen! Whatever “reinvigoration” takes place, may take several generations. Like a great gothic cathedral. If it’s worth building, it’s worth taking the time. Just gotta keep your eyes, ears, and heart open. Thanks for engaging, and for all your hard work. I really appreciate your channel. All the best.
@@kendallburks and @samuel_andreyev: I think the master/apprentice model is very interesting, but I don't think it works quite in the way either of you is imagining (maybe I'm wrong). I think _practical experience_ in the real world is essential for making meaningful Art. Art that doesn't have its roots somewhere in experienced reality makes no sense. So, one's _mentor_ should be someone who is a successful practitioner of some sort, and whose work lies in the direction one want's to develop. He/she could be an academic, journalist, tontechniker, programmer, composer, performer etc. If you're a _composer_ you will write music, whatever your technical speciality happens to be. But beware: If you choose an academic, you will probably end up as an academic. In other words, after leaving the education system one should get into a profession where one is likely to find a _mentor_ whose work/tradition one wants to continue in some way. I entirely agree with @samuel_andreyev that the best place for _composers_ to start is with small groups of like-minded _performers_ . All the great composers of the past were also performers. Good, effective compositions can only be written by practitioners. Theory is never going to be sufficient to describe reality with the necessary precision. @kendallburks : You said "If it’s worth building, it’s worth taking the time. Just gotta keep your eyes, ears, and heart open." Right on! But I don't think it needs to take "several generations" :-)
I often see what you’re talking about in popular music education: this tendency to try to produce musicians who can coexist well with other musicians in the current musical ecosystem. The training is purely vocational. There’s never any question as to whether today’s ecosystem is healthy. The teachers are afraid to make value judgements; they don’t see it as their duty to help their students challenge the status quo (which is particularly ironic in popular music because rock and roll was born out of rebellion). That said, I agree that you can’t take a torch to the entire ecosystem. I think teachers should be inspiring their students to produce art that transforms. More like a controlled burn. Or maybe like introducing a new species whose presence fundamentally alters the ecosystem for the better.
About this "tradition" discussion, I will quote Second City Bureaucrat: "Celine mindset is necessary today. Everything that is declared sacred must be dragged through the gutter to see what retains its luster."
There IS greate music being composed in our time. You just have to dig for it (like you had to in all times). Please watch David Hurwitz's video clip about the matter :Music chat:16(plus 2) fabulous living composers.
IMO we need less people criticizing art, and more people creating art, whether it be a symphony or a youtube video. I understand the crucial role of criticism in the past - to point people or patrons towards the truly exceptional artists, but in these times I don't see how music critics would actually have any productive influence. An optimistic view of the future for me would not include people searching externally for the most beautiful art that is humanly possible, but would include mass amounts of people with the ability to search inside themselves for their own beauty, and translate that into any artform. isn't the act of creating beautiful in itself? Thank you for the video, and all your work.
We are now all indexed to the market, and this obviously includes the Fine Arts. The final arbiter of any value has become monetary value, and artistic production has to compete in this all encompassing market system, which I think explains the perceived decline of the Fine Arts or even "High Culture". An implication of all this is that transcendence is dead, that is, the possibility of challenging and surpassing our current spiritual and cultural condition is no longer held out as a viable option.
@samuel_andreyev I enjoy your channel and am a subscriber. If you review the interview you're using a lot of past tense language which implies why aren't things like they used to be? I don't think reality is about the way things used to be nor anything to do with returning to the way things used to be. The best art expresses its contemporary time for communicating something about the human historical experience good or bad. There is nothing to be gained by lamenting about the past nor complaining about "decline" which is an historical cyclical reality that cannot be changed nor avoided.You do great work Samuel! This interview however goes down a black hole (which are now recently found at the center of all observed galaxies (so far). It's fine, no one is expected to be perfect. You're searching for answers that aren't there on this one. And the guest speakers conversation amounts to a lot of incoherent babbel probably appreciated at French academic institutions, but incoherent for "normal" human beings. Humor Samuel. I did listen to the entire interview. I think you might agree that the most important thing is to compose your music regardless of anything else including "what it means." Sound and music are exciting enough and do not need verbal explanations or justification. Best, 😛
Not one word about artists as highly specialized humans outside of their cultural products and cultural import. One can ask about the inner life of the artist. What is that inner life that motivates the great artist? Is any modern conception of the artist worthy of the greatest past examples? Is any modern conception of the artist’s ideals worthy of anyone actually taking up the massive effort to do?
Too abstract, too much intellection. Talk first about humans - the artist. The audience. “Culture” is made by these two and as such is a subsidiary question, one that requires no consideration whatsoever until the first question is considered. The Human.
Interesting conversation. However, also a little invain. Art is done by artists not by institutions or by subsidies. So to think changing the system will produce better results is pointless. If there is a capable artist, who can produce something a critical mass will find meaningful, he or she will find his or her way. So there is nothing for us to do than to wait until he or she comes along.
@@samuel_andreyevyes there is something very important to do. Four things, actually. Step 1, throw off the concept that music is “content” to be monetized. Just forget about ever making a cent on music or ever getting it played. Step 2, take on the concept that music and the fine arts have up until recently been accompanied by poverty, and that poverty was considered a fair trade-off for the rich world that the pursuit of art would allow. Step 3. Create works of art aimed to glorify your creator and to come closer to God. Note Beethoven statement of his closeness to God over other composers. That’s what he meant. Note Bach’s annotation of his scores that all is for the glory of God alone. That’s what he meant. Step 4. Stop trying to control everything. If your work is selected by the great creator of all things, then others will know about it in whatever is the right time. Stop trying to make institutions and trying to make yourself look important, like you’re on a great mission to create a great culture. Just get closer to your creator and you’ll be on the same path of all the great artist. Just give yourself up to poverty. These 4 steps are what all of what we currently call the greatest genius creators of all time have had in common, with few exceptions. Can anyone care to honestly deny that these have been the way all great art has been created?
@@samuel_andreyev not sure there's much to do... As the great Tom Waits said, in the song "It's over" : "Because there's something to be said about saying nothing at all." Or as Alan Watts said, "The people trying to save the world might be the people that will destroy it..." I think doing nothing may be the best option. Also, modern compositions probably just aren't that good or compelling. There's a reason we still love Bach and Beethoven. I judge music on whether or not I will listen to it again. For me Most "modern" compositions aren't worth listening to more than once. Anyway, thanks for the great videos and music!! Hope you are doing well!
@@samuel_andreyev In my view, I would question the assertion that there was a lack of great composers at that time, I would just say that those great composers simply had no possibility for the expression of those works. Let's take an extreme example of the great artists that were imprisoned in the gulags. I'm thinking of authors, but many composers were also thrown in prison camps. There was no lack of great artists (authors, etc) in that they existed in the prison camps, and they could well have been tremendously productive in captivity, but they certainly didn't exist in the outward social sphere, except some few authors who did become known due to the death-defying efforts of a few who smuggled their works out of Russia. What happened to the thousands of pages of literary works, musical works, works of theater, etc that were lost in the Gulags, due to the eventual torture and murder of a given artist prisoner? Lost to the world forever. Therefore, my basic answer to your question is: My view is that great artists are not dependent on outward culture, but outward culture may not be able to receive the productivity of the great artist, due to its -- in the case of the USSR example I gave -- extremely restrictive policies -- enforced by either the government or by the populace itself. Does that view hold water to you?
If music is an expression of a culture then it should not be surprising that everything became fragmented in the 1970ies. Our culture is fragmented. The chances that your neighbor shares the same values or is familiar with the same fairy tales, books, music, television shows or youtube channels as you is negligible. We all live in our own little sub sub-culture. And the conservatoire subculture is one of the more obscure subcultures anno 2025. That makes mega projects like operas absolutely delusional. But if we live in a time of artistic decline remains to be seen. Maybe this time is so fertile that we just can not oversee what is going on. With the idea that a (sub)culture that is focused on preserving music instead of creating new music is in decline I do not agree. Culture always has periods of progress and consolidation. What would be the point of composing ambitious works if the next generation is not interested in what you did ?
The point of composing an ambitious work is your personal effort, for yourself. People do many "pointless" things. Let us take weight training. Weight training is relatively popular, with a $14.76 beeellion dollar market value. That's half the value of the music entertainment industry. Not one rep, set, or drop of sweat has the effect of a good piece of music on someone besides the one who produced it. And yet tens of thousands of people do it. So what good is composing an ambitious piece? What good is scaling a mountain? You ultimately do it for yourself.And if you don't do it, then it won't be done.
Everything was always fragmented. Nothing to do with the 1970s. The Native American term Koyaanisqatsi means "life out of balance" which is the reality of eternity. That didn't begin in the 1970s.
@@carsonfarley2560 I see your point, but I do think it is save to assume that composers in Europe from the second half of the 18th century were writing in a Mozart like style. And even upto the 1970ies I think there was consensus on style, both in classical and popular music in the west. And people in general were familiar with the same list of composers and artists. But now I see record collectors and reviewers on UA-cam who show their collection and I am not familiar with even one artist.
As McLuhan said, we can see the future coming in the rear view mirror. My bet is that there will be no "next big thing", but only a completely unorthodox personal intimate non-academic non-traditional obscure cyberpunk pop with mix of industrial and folk medieval music and electronic DIY destructive of tradition, demonical beings, alien poetry, with little intellectualizing and not embellished, but polished nevertheless, rare, with simple and direct language, songs from the outside or the most agressive hyperpop... -- style of music. The most important thing is that the artist feels with his heart... The time for academic intelectuals and "contemporary music" is in the past... Andy Warhol and Pop Art destroyed the avant-garde forever... I gave up being a "composer"... We live in an age of entertainement... Artists need adaptation to the time we live in... The Velvet Underground, Radiohead, Coil, Bjork, Scott Walker are things that come to mind...
Unfortunately this conversation is meaningless. I only know that because I listened to it - there is no argument here. Art, or music is created by people who do it regardless of "its" meaning.
America just voted for and elected trump - you can forget about "art" in North America for the foreseeable future unless you think kid rock is art . . .
@@theangryginger7582 I really appreciate Samuel's channel, work, and music. He occupies a certain place in the music world as composer, artist, and academic. Many of his posts are not conservative, open minded and forward looking. I think its the nature of this topic that breeds these types of academic conversations about what it all means which invariably end up down a verbal rabbit hole. After all, as a musician/artist/composer/performer, etc , you just have to get out there and do it regardless of obstacles and "what it all means" because that comes down to the individual primarily and whatever is going on in a society.
As far as I'm concerned, the golden dot on the Rode NT1 should be pointed towards the sound source (which clearly isn't the case here) - that might be the cause of a less than ideal reproduction of Samuel's voice
Agree? Disagree? Let us know in the comments below!
The huge problem I see with the master/apprentice model is that it implies a shared tradition, which we totally lack. I’m not sure I know what the solution is, as the move towards greater and greater individual idiosyncrasy doesn’t seem to be slowing down. As John Cage said once (I’m paraphrasing) the history of art has evolved from there being several primary streams, to being in delta, to actually entering the ocean. There is no unifying force, and until that arises, I think your notion of each artist essentially fending for themselves via new technology is the best bet. I may be taking too totalizing a view though. Perhaps pockets of tradition will spring up, and with them the power of a more collective (rather than individualistic) approach to the arts, which is implied by the master/apprentice model, may start to be gradually unleashed, especially as its superiority is recognized. That being said, as someone whose musical tastes are quite diverse, I honestly don’t think a total mono-culture is the ideal either. In such a globalized world, it actually seems impossible. So it’s a very tricky problem. Just my thoughts at the moment. Great conversation!
We don’t totally lack a shared tradition! It’s there, but it needs to be invigorated, something higher education has not been providing. Students tell me all the time that they aren’t getting what they are looking for in their university degrees.
@ maybe “total lack” is an oversimplification. The seeds may be there, but the context is so different from their origins, I have a hard time imagining they could be planted in way that would lead to genuine growth. Perhaps I lack imagination. Perhaps I idealize the degree to which the past was homogeneous… but then again, you really don’t see the sheer diversity of stylistic trends in basically any prior century. We live in such insanely novel circumstances. Maybe I’m exaggerating that as well? I really don’t despair… I often lament the degree to which our culture seems to be in tatters, but there is also so much to be optimistic about. Who knows what will happen! Whatever “reinvigoration” takes place, may take several generations. Like a great gothic cathedral. If it’s worth building, it’s worth taking the time. Just gotta keep your eyes, ears, and heart open.
Thanks for engaging, and for all your hard work. I really appreciate your channel. All the best.
@@kendallburks and @samuel_andreyev: I think the master/apprentice model is very interesting, but I don't think it works quite in the way either of you is imagining (maybe I'm wrong). I think _practical experience_ in the real world is essential for making meaningful Art. Art that doesn't have its roots somewhere in experienced reality makes no sense.
So, one's _mentor_ should be someone who is a successful practitioner of some sort, and whose work lies in the direction one want's to develop.
He/she could be an academic, journalist, tontechniker, programmer, composer, performer etc. If you're a _composer_ you will write music, whatever your technical speciality happens to be. But beware: If you choose an academic, you will probably end up as an academic.
In other words, after leaving the education system one should get into a profession where one is likely to find a _mentor_ whose work/tradition one wants to continue in some way.
I entirely agree with @samuel_andreyev that the best place for _composers_ to start is with small groups of like-minded _performers_ . All the great composers of the past were also performers. Good, effective compositions can only be written by practitioners. Theory is never going to be sufficient to describe reality with the necessary precision.
@kendallburks : You said "If it’s worth building, it’s worth taking the time. Just gotta keep your eyes, ears, and heart open." Right on! But I don't think it needs to take "several generations" :-)
Check out R.S. Pearson's work. He's been publishing an aesthetic theory called Virtuism since the 1980s. Philosophy and the Aesthetics of Virtue.
I often see what you’re talking about in popular music education: this tendency to try to produce musicians who can coexist well with other musicians in the current musical ecosystem. The training is purely vocational. There’s never any question as to whether today’s ecosystem is healthy. The teachers are afraid to make value judgements; they don’t see it as their duty to help their students challenge the status quo (which is particularly ironic in popular music because rock and roll was born out of rebellion). That said, I agree that you can’t take a torch to the entire ecosystem. I think teachers should be inspiring their students to produce art that transforms. More like a controlled burn. Or maybe like introducing a new species whose presence fundamentally alters the ecosystem for the better.
Excellent conversation--thank you both!
About this "tradition" discussion, I will quote Second City Bureaucrat:
"Celine mindset is necessary today. Everything that is declared sacred must be dragged through the gutter to see what retains its luster."
Thank you both.
Nice discussion.
There IS greate music being composed in our time. You just have to dig for it (like you had to in all times). Please watch David Hurwitz's video clip about the matter :Music chat:16(plus 2) fabulous living composers.
What was isn't what is. Change is the reality. This entire subject is defined in Hermann Hesse's 1940s novel The Glass Bead Game.
IMO we need less people criticizing art, and more people creating art, whether it be a symphony or a youtube video. I understand the crucial role of criticism in the past - to point people or patrons towards the truly exceptional artists, but in these times I don't see how music critics would actually have any productive influence. An optimistic view of the future for me would not include people searching externally for the most beautiful art that is humanly possible, but would include mass amounts of people with the ability to search inside themselves for their own beauty, and translate that into any artform. isn't the act of creating beautiful in itself?
Thank you for the video, and all your work.
Necessity is the mother of invention and intention.
"In the uk ,so appalling bad," !!!😂...so true.
Excellent.
We are now all indexed to the market, and this obviously includes the Fine Arts. The final arbiter of any value has become monetary value, and artistic production has to compete in this all encompassing market system, which I think explains the perceived decline of the Fine Arts or even "High Culture".
An implication of all this is that transcendence is dead, that is, the possibility of challenging and surpassing our current spiritual and cultural condition is no longer held out as a viable option.
Be more conscious about using the past tense in this intellectual art conversation because the past is what was, not what is.
Could you bee more pacific?
@samuel_andreyev I enjoy your channel and am a subscriber. If you review the interview you're using a lot of past tense language which implies why aren't things like they used to be? I don't think reality is about the way things used to be nor anything to do with returning to the way things used to be. The best art expresses its contemporary time for communicating something about the human historical experience good or bad. There is nothing to be gained by lamenting about the past nor complaining about "decline" which is an historical cyclical reality that cannot be changed nor avoided.You do great work Samuel! This interview however goes down a black hole (which are now recently found at the center of all observed galaxies (so far). It's fine, no one is expected to be perfect. You're searching for answers that aren't there on this one. And the guest speakers conversation amounts to a lot of incoherent babbel probably appreciated at French academic institutions, but incoherent for "normal" human beings. Humor Samuel. I did listen to the entire interview. I think you might agree that the most important thing is to compose your music regardless of anything else including "what it means." Sound and music are exciting enough and do not need verbal explanations or justification. Best, 😛
Not one word about artists as highly specialized humans outside of their cultural products and cultural import. One can ask about the inner life of the artist. What is that inner life that motivates the great artist? Is any modern conception of the artist worthy of the greatest past examples? Is any modern conception of the artist’s ideals worthy of anyone actually taking up the massive effort to do?
Too abstract, too much intellection. Talk first about humans - the artist. The audience. “Culture” is made by these two and as such is a subsidiary question, one that requires no consideration whatsoever until the first question is considered. The Human.
great show...difficult to accept that the water of art is always good, but the well of the water is just about empty.
Does your mic work or is your voice picked from hers? 😅
It works but I accidentally had it facing the wrong way 😂 I won’t make that mistake again
❤❤
Interesting conversation. However, also a little invain. Art is done by artists not by institutions or by subsidies. So to think changing the system will produce better results is pointless. If there is a capable artist, who can produce something a critical mass will find meaningful, he or she will find his or her way. So there is nothing for us to do than to wait until he or she comes along.
Ok so do nothing?
@@samuel_andreyev Aren't you the composer? So the job is all yours.
@@samuel_andreyevyes there is something very important to do. Four things, actually. Step 1, throw off the concept that music is “content” to be monetized. Just forget about ever making a cent on music or ever getting it played. Step 2, take on the concept that music and the fine arts have up until recently been accompanied by poverty, and that poverty was considered a fair trade-off for the rich world that the pursuit of art would allow. Step 3. Create works of art aimed to glorify your creator and to come closer to God. Note Beethoven statement of his closeness to God over other composers. That’s what he meant. Note Bach’s annotation of his scores that all is for the glory of God alone. That’s what he meant. Step 4. Stop trying to control everything. If your work is selected by the great creator of all things, then others will know about it in whatever is the right time. Stop trying to make institutions and trying to make yourself look important, like you’re on a great mission to create a great culture. Just get closer to your creator and you’ll be on the same path of all the great artist. Just give yourself up to poverty. These 4 steps are what all of what we currently call the greatest genius creators of all time have had in common, with few exceptions. Can anyone care to honestly deny that these have been the way all great art has been created?
@@samuel_andreyev not sure there's much to do... As the great Tom Waits said, in the song "It's over" : "Because there's something to be said about saying nothing at all." Or as Alan Watts said, "The people trying to save the world might be the people that will destroy it..." I think doing nothing may be the best option. Also, modern compositions probably just aren't that good or compelling. There's a reason we still love Bach and Beethoven. I judge music on whether or not I will listen to it again. For me Most "modern" compositions aren't worth listening to more than once. Anyway, thanks for the great videos and music!! Hope you are doing well!
@@Tylervrooman Why would anyone want to listen to atonal music?
The key, I think, lies with the entrepreneurial individual who, perhaps even through largely non-artistic means, builds new institutions.
I would argue that institutions will be built when there are great artists creating great art. Cart before the horse IMO.
@ner-tamid is the reason for the lack of great composers in England between Purcell and Britten due to a sudden decline in talent, in your view?
@@samuel_andreyev In my view, I would question the assertion that there was a lack of great composers at that time, I would just say that those great composers simply had no possibility for the expression of those works. Let's take an extreme example of the great artists that were imprisoned in the gulags. I'm thinking of authors, but many composers were also thrown in prison camps. There was no lack of great artists (authors, etc) in that they existed in the prison camps, and they could well have been tremendously productive in captivity, but they certainly didn't exist in the outward social sphere, except some few authors who did become known due to the death-defying efforts of a few who smuggled their works out of Russia. What happened to the thousands of pages of literary works, musical works, works of theater, etc that were lost in the Gulags, due to the eventual torture and murder of a given artist prisoner? Lost to the world forever. Therefore, my basic answer to your question is: My view is that great artists are not dependent on outward culture, but outward culture may not be able to receive the productivity of the great artist, due to its -- in the case of the USSR example I gave -- extremely restrictive policies -- enforced by either the government or by the populace itself. Does that view hold water to you?
If music is an expression of a culture then it should not be surprising that everything became fragmented in the 1970ies. Our culture is fragmented. The chances that your neighbor shares the same values or is familiar with the same fairy tales, books, music, television shows or youtube channels as you is negligible. We all live in our own little sub sub-culture. And the conservatoire subculture is one of the more obscure subcultures anno 2025. That makes mega projects like operas absolutely delusional. But if we live in a time of artistic decline remains to be seen. Maybe this time is so fertile that we just can not oversee what is going on. With the idea that a (sub)culture that is focused on preserving music instead of creating new music is in decline I do not agree. Culture always has periods of progress and consolidation. What would be the point of composing ambitious works if the next generation is not interested in what you did ?
The point of composing an ambitious work is your personal effort, for yourself. People do many "pointless" things. Let us take weight training. Weight training is relatively popular, with a $14.76 beeellion dollar market value. That's half the value of the music entertainment industry. Not one rep, set, or drop of sweat has the effect of a good piece of music on someone besides the one who produced it. And yet tens of thousands of people do it. So what good is composing an ambitious piece? What good is scaling a mountain? You ultimately do it for yourself.And if you don't do it, then it won't be done.
@@ChainsawCoffee true, but I think composers like the idea that their works will live on.
@@DmitriBron1973 True, _and_ the work must exist to be able to live on.
Everything was always fragmented. Nothing to do with the 1970s. The Native American term Koyaanisqatsi means "life out of balance" which is the reality of eternity. That didn't begin in the 1970s.
@@carsonfarley2560 I see your point, but I do think it is save to assume that composers in Europe from the second half of the 18th century were writing in a Mozart like style. And even upto the 1970ies I think there was consensus on style, both in classical and popular music in the west. And people in general were familiar with the same list of composers and artists. But now I see record collectors and reviewers on UA-cam who show their collection and I am not familiar with even one artist.
As McLuhan said, we can see the future coming in the rear view mirror. My bet is that there will be no "next big thing", but only a completely unorthodox personal intimate non-academic non-traditional obscure cyberpunk pop with mix of industrial and folk medieval music and electronic DIY destructive of tradition, demonical beings, alien poetry, with little intellectualizing and not embellished, but polished nevertheless, rare, with simple and direct language, songs from the outside or the most agressive hyperpop... -- style of music. The most important thing is that the artist feels with his heart... The time for academic intelectuals and "contemporary music" is in the past... Andy Warhol and Pop Art destroyed the avant-garde forever... I gave up being a "composer"... We live in an age of entertainement... Artists need adaptation to the time we live in... The Velvet Underground, Radiohead, Coil, Bjork, Scott Walker are things that come to mind...
Unfortunately this conversation is meaningless. I only know that because I listened to it - there is no argument here. Art, or music is created by people who do it regardless of "its" meaning.
America just voted for and elected trump - you can forget about "art" in North America for the foreseeable future unless you think kid rock is art . . .
Trump is great
Ahh that’s just a silly thing to say, @carsonfarley2560.
Andreyev seems to be pretty conservative...
@@theangryginger7582 I really appreciate Samuel's channel, work, and music. He occupies a certain place in the music world as composer, artist, and academic. Many of his posts are not conservative, open minded and forward looking. I think its the nature of this topic that breeds these types of academic conversations about what it all means which invariably end up down a verbal rabbit hole. After all, as a musician/artist/composer/performer, etc , you just have to get out there and do it regardless of obstacles and "what it all means" because that comes down to the individual primarily and whatever is going on in a society.
This sounds like it was recorded in a shower and it seems the audio and video is ever so slightly out of sync.
There were some production issues but the audio quality improves after a bit. My apologies. Hope you enjoy it anyway!
@@samuel_andreyev I'll do my best!
@@samuel_andreyev Sounds fine on my computer.
@@samuel_andreyev it sounds good! Thank you for the interview.
As far as I'm concerned, the golden dot on the Rode NT1 should be pointed towards the sound source (which clearly isn't the case here) - that might be the cause of a less than ideal reproduction of Samuel's voice