From: Eldad Tsabary (tazberry_docs@yahoo.ca)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2010 - 23:58:51 EDT
-------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Wentk" <richard@wentk.com>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:44 PM
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Subject: Re: Walter Benjamin
> Composer intention is a pointer to experience, but once an artwork is
> public, creators no longer have sole control over the experience, meaning
> and influence of the work.
>
I like That! I understand your approach to be generally relativist, or even
experientialist. Not to get into the old formalist vs. relativist
philosophical aesthetical approach, perhaps composers and receivers who
experience the works are both necessary for the reality of experiencing a
composition. In other words, the essence of a piece may lie not only in one
or the other but in both.
There is no experience without the listener and the piece, which is intended
to be communicated to, thus perceived by, listeners does not exist without
them. At the same time without the composer there is no art to perceive.
But wait... what about environmental sound?
When Cage described all sound as music, even the sounds coming through his
window from the busy streets of NY, he suggested that, perhaps, the composer
is not as necessary as the perceiver (in order to make music).
If one is to accept the idea that music is "organized sound" then one may
ask, how can sounds of (chaotic) traffic be considered music? But sound
organization indeed occurs in the listener's brain. He may change his
attention, focus, or mode of listening to perceive relationships, and maybe
even hierarchies, of some kind among the multitude of car horns, yells,
general hum, sirens, etc. He would be composing in his own mind by selective
attention and brain processes, or in other words composing
psychoacoustically (but not acoustically).
Accepting this idea certainly points out towards a relativist preference (or
its scientific sister - postpositivism).
If we are to accept Benjamin's concept of an "aura" then we may be more
biased towards the formalist approach (in assuming that there is something
there in a work of art that is "absolute").
> As for acousmatic music - it's remarkably bad at being totemic and
> influential. It might be more interesting to change that before worrying
> about auras.
>
This sounds a bit harsh, and also viewing the value of acousmatic music in
an absolute (formalist) manner. You consider acousmatic music as not being
influential. Influential on whom? On the masses? Does art have to influence
the masses?
> I'd suggest that acousmatic music *was* interesting when recording,
> manipulation and recontextualisation were new and fresh. Now that children
> can do all of these things, what social narrative does it have to offer?
This sounds as if acousmatic music is, in your view, about the act of
recording, manipulating, and recontextualizing - aspects belonging to the
vocabulary and grammatical tools of the medium, not its expression. The
fact that children have the technological knowhow to recreate the vocabulary
and some of the grammar of the medium should have nothing to do with the
validity of the artistic expression of the composers or the artistic
experience of the listeners.
Similarly, you can use language (vocabulary and syntax)
1. to tell a good joke
2. to tell a bad joke
3. to say meaningless things
4. to say meaningful things
5. to say meaningful things that are not really your own, duplicating
others' ideas
6. to understand and contextualize all of the above and laugh, cry, be
outraged, be bored, or just about any other human response.
If you are indeed bored, is the language the first thing to blame?
Cheers,
Eldad
>
> On 28 Sep 2010, at 02:27, Eldad Tsabary wrote:
>
>> >People can view the painting just as Leonardo de Vinci intended it to
>> >be... The painting is tangible; we can see it and even touch it.
>> I’d like to see what happens when you do ;)
>> >For example to listen to the original 9th Symphony by Beethoven, we
>> >would have to travel back in time to when it was first performed in the
>> >original time and place
>> I might even argue that in order to listen to the original 9th symphony
>> we might have to go into Beethoven’s head.
>> > the authenticity of an original in music is already dissolved through
>> > the process in which it is created and the nature of music itself.
>> Nonetheless, this is true and quite important. It is true for all
>> performing arts.
>> > I would say however, what we can class as the original ‘aura’ of a
>> > piece of music is the original intention of the composer.
>> Is this different from a painting then? The fact that there is a tangible
>> piece of art that is very close to the intention of the composer doesn’t
>> oppose the classification of the piece’s aura as the creator’s intention.
>> Moreover, acousmatic pieces created in the studio (not intended for
>> performance but for fixed media) are very much a tangible representation
>> of this aura (the artist’s intention), just as much as a painting, in my
>> opinion.
>> You also mention that even with paintings, the dislocation of the
>> original painting and the specific way in which it is presented, being
>> taken away from its intended context, is perhaps taking away from the
>> original aura (the creator’s intention) of the piece. With acousmatic
>> pieces this may not even be the case, because the composer’s intention
>> may have been for it to be heard in headphones or in the car, so we may
>> argue that in this case such media and presentation (headphones, car) are
>> the natural context intended by the composer and they are therefore
>> (perhaps) included in the work’s aura.
>> Thanks for sharing... very interesting. I am sure you are having fun with
>> this.
>> Cheers
>> Eldad
>>
>> From: Christopher Hoddinott
>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:53 PM
>> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>> Subject: RE: Walter Benjamin
>>
>> Cheers Eldad,
>>
>> There is a distinction between dealing with the ‘aura’ of the original in
>> music and in art. It is easier to define what is an original piece of art
>> to an original piece of music.
>> An original piece of art, such as the Mona Lisa, which was painted in the
>> 16th century, can be found in an art gallery in the Louvre in Paris.
>> People can view the painting just as Leonardo de Vinci intended it to be,
>> with every brush stroke that he made. The painting is tangible; we can
>> see it and even touch it. To find a piece of music from the same era we
>> can find a score. The score is a visual representation of the original
>> piece of music, but it is not the original piece of music itself. The
>> music itself is intangible; we cannot see or touch it, we can only hear
>> music, therefore the music only exists in the time it is being heard. For
>> example to listen to the original 9th Symphony by Beethoven, we would
>> have to travel back in time to when it was first performed in the
>> original time and place. It is even impossible to listen to a recording
>> of this, as the first recordings did not take place till the end of the
>> 19th Century.
>> Recording also raises two other interesting points. Firstly, when a
>> recording is played back we have a displacement of time and space. The
>> music would have been recorded at one place and time whilst some time
>> later listened to at another space and time. This is much like a print of
>> a piece of artwork. The music is a document of the original. With modern
>> recording techniques the original recording can be manipulated through
>> processors and multi - tracked to create multiples of displacement.
>> Different recording layered recorded at different times.
>> In conclusion, the authenticity of an original in music is already
>> dissolved through the process in which it is created and the nature of
>> music itself. I would say however, what we can class as the original
>> ‘aura’ of a piece of music is the original intention of the composer.
>> What did the composer intend when creating the music and does a
>> representation, either in performance or recording, reflect upon that?
>> When sampling music, it is taken away from the context and away from the
>> composer’s intensions. The same could be said for art- did Leonardo de
>> Vinci ever have the intensions of his picture to be kept behind glass and
>> in a grand art gallery like the Louvre? In brief, the aura of the
>> original piece of music is in the intension of the composer, not through
>> its processes.
>> I hope this is a clear, brief outline of my thoughts; I could go into
>> further detail with a few more aspects, especially in regards to space.
>> Best Wishes,
>> Chris Hoddinott,
>>
>> > From: tazberry_docs@yahoo.ca
>> > To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>> > Subject: Re: Walter Benjamin
>> > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:05:07 -0400
>> >
>> > Thanks Chris,
>> > This is indeed very interesting. I guess you are right, this is not
>> > longer
>> > the mechanical age of reproduction (and its limitations) but the
>> > digital
>> > one. Benjamin's writing is certainly relevant to the present, though as
>> > you
>> > briefly stated, there are many additional issues that come from the
>> > nature
>> > of the digital domain (for instance, how far can we go from the source
>> > in
>> > digital processing that the "aura" of the original work of art is
>> > completely
>> > lost).
>> > I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about this, so I switched it to
>> > a
>> > different thread.
>> > Cheers
>> > Eldad
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------
>> > From: "Christopher Hoddinott" <hodmeistermusic@hotmail.co.uk>
>> > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 2:30 PM
>> > To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
>> > Subject: Re: Sampling in the age of mechanical reproduction
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dear Elhad,
>> > >
>> > > I am sorry for poor English but I am on my iPhone and you excited
>> > > myself
>> > > when speaking about Walter Benjamin as my PhD at the moment has a lot
>> > > to
>> > > do with himself.
>> > >
>> > > I think the points that Walter Benjamin made are relevant when
>> > > talking
>> > > about music and the modern era, I do think we can take his teachings
>> > > further. We are beyond an age of mechanical reproduction but instead
>> > > of
>> > > digital reproduction where the view of the 'image' can be viewed
>> > > scientifically or manipulated to such a degree that it can be
>> > > unrecognisable from the original to take two brief examples. We can
>> > > transfer this basis to the intangible sound source, as sound and
>> > > music
>> > > only exists in the time work it is being played. We can do something
>> > > in
>> > > the digital age with has been difficult in the mechanical age and
>> > > visualise the sound by either waveforms or spectrographs. However the
>> > > waveform like a score is only a tangible representation of sound.
>> > >
>> > > I hope this interests you. I hope to go into more detail at some
>> > > point.
>> > > When not on iPhone
>> > >
>> > > Chris Hoddinott
>> > >
>> > > ________________________
>> > >
>> > > On 2010-09-26 18:15:32 GMT Eldad Tsabary <tazberry_docs@yahoo.ca>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Do you ?
>> > >> ;)
>> > >> A few more questions (since we don't have enough yet)
>> > >> 1. How is intellectual property different from material property?
>> > >> 2. How is a patent different from a copyright?
>> > >> 3. Copyright is generally considered to not protect ideas and facts
>> > >> but
>> > >> only
>> > >> their expression, what does this mean?
>> > >>
>> > >> The topic can go as deep as any other topic we use words to
>> > >> communicate...
>> > >>
>> > >> I am mostly curious (at this second) about copyright questions with
>> > >> the
>> > >> focus
>> > >> of live vs. fixed medium
>> > >> Thanks
>> > >> Eldad
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> From: Kevin Austin
>> > >> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 1:48 PM
>> > >> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>> > >> Subject: Re: Sampling in the age of mechanical reproduction
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> So many questions ...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> The first one might be, "Do you believe in ownership?"
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Kevin
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On 2010, Sep 26, at 12:28 PM, Eldad Tsabary wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Hello all,
>> > >>
>> > >> I am very curious about others’ thoughts, observations, and opinions
>> > >> about
>> > >> the use of sampling (of other works) in performance (live EA) vs. in
>> > >> fixed-media compositions (or recorded performances).
>> > >>
>> > >> In “sampling” I am referring to the practice of using short
>> > >> “samples” of other copyrighted works.
>> > >>
>> > >> In other words I am curious to hear your comments (philosophical,
>> > >> historical, legal, aesthetic, practical, personal, etc.) about the
>> > >> topic
>> > >> of
>> > >> turntablism vs. plunderphonics (and derivatives) especially in
>> > >> regards to
>> > >> copyright and ownership issues.
>> > >>
>> > >> My biggest question is whether you think there should be a
>> > >> difference
>> > >> in
>> > >> copyright compliance and enforcement between transient live
>> > >> performances
>> > >> and
>> > >> recorded/distributed compositions.
>> > >>
>> > >> A couple of points to consider (perhaps)...
>> > >>
>> > >> Among other points, Walter Benjamin’s 1935 essay The Work of Art in
>> > >> the
>> > >> Age of Mechanical Reproduction emphasizes the level of detail of
>> > >> analysis
>> > >> available in reproduced works. He wrote “behavior items shown in a
>> > >> movie
>> > >> can be analyzed much more precisely and from more points of view
>> > >> than
>> > >> those
>> > >> presented on paintings or on the stage... In comparison with the
>> > >> stage
>> > >> scene,
>> > >> the filmed behavior item lends itself more readily to analysis
>> > >> because it
>> > >> can
>> > >> be isolated more easily.”
>> > >>
>> > >> Do you think that this availability to analysis of
>> > >> reproduced/recorded
>> > >> works
>> > >> makes a difference in regards to copyright?
>> > >>
>> > >> Sampling (in hip hop) was mostly outside the legal radar until 1991
>> > >> when
>> > >> rapper Biz Markie sampled Gilbert O’Sullivan’s song Alone Again
>> > >> (1972) in
>> > >> his own song Alone Again. A court ruling (NY) then decided that
>> > >> every
>> > >> sample
>> > >> must be cleared with its copyright owner (regardless of duration)
>> > >> and
>> > >> Markie’s album was taken out of circulation (and his career went
>> > >> downhill).
>> > >> The dry law might mean then that live performance of master DJs and
>> > >> turntablists (such as Kid Koala), which depend on improvisation with
>> > >> existing
>> > >> material, must also clear all copyright before performance... or
>> > >> does it?
>> > >> Is
>> > >> this really a possibility? Is this a valid work of art? Is there
>> > >> such a
>> > >> thing?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks
>> > >> Eldad
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 28 2010 - 06:01:28 EDT