Subject: Re: Solo ea
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Sun Feb 13 2005 - 07:16:33 EST
Eliot Handelman wrote:
> What's wrong with seeing the sound as signals by which some sort of
> experience is engendered? I know
> that you feel strongly about absolutes in art, about which I'm unsure.
> If you know the art well maybe
> you can say stuff like that, but that seems to defeat your idea about
> some sort of direct transmission
> of absolute quyality via sound.
> I heard a piece by Turina on the radio today that I found great, but
> I'm also pretty sure I
> wouldn't have notced a million things about it had I listened to it
> ten yrs ago say. I jhave the
> right to devloip my hearing? Where does that fit in? How is that
> contained in sound? The push
> tworads development in art is made object by the existence of great
> geniuses, but is mahler's impact
> a sound wave thing (partly, because it;'s ALSO about esperienecing
> sound in the interests of various
> expressive purposes) or some vastly complex human artifact?
something in me here - completely intuitively and on a wild tangent - is
relating images, art, music, and resonances that can only be felt - by
waves. physical waves - they are all part of the same spectrum. i 'see
music' visually, and have also physically felt it during a period of
serious illness - that was quite an experience despite the illness
itself which was hell - the experience of feeling music was like taking
E (which i've never done despite growing up in the E generation, but i
imagine it to be so).
i begin every work with a pictorial vision. my emotions are pictures. i
think in pictures. then again, i am dyslexic - and dyslexics have little
inner dialogue - they think in pictures.
but it is also synaesthesia. so perhaps it is objective also - the
physical waves of sound transposed to their lower/upper frequencies in
physical feeling (thump thump) or in their visual spectrum. perhaps this
is the objective side.
perhaps it also is not- my 'pictures' as i like to call them, are
subjective. so were Messiaen's - another synaesthetic. his pictures are
not the same as mine when i hear his music.
but the magic of music is the subjective side. thats why we make it -
the stirring, the emotion - why else? why would one bother to write
music when mathematics would be a better expression? (i actually believe
it was the master of all (early) experimentations in mathematically
calculated music - Iannis Xenakis - who said so. and his music is as
expressive as it is mathematical. it is phenomenal - and perhaps so
because he really was waiting for a computer to make the sounds he
heard... that was where he needed the mathematical calculations. still,
it is the work of genuis in itself).
and that is why we grow and develop our hearing too. and our emotive
responses - we grow as human beings - ten years is a long time, and a
major part of life and life experience. we bring to music part of
ourselves, and i know in myself that pieces i listened to ten years ago
that had no meaning for me have suddenly reappeared and i burst into
tears listening to them / am fascinated by their science / have other
reactions. i have matured.
> WHy should music be so sad? becaus ethe artist suffers. But then, as
> Nieztsche says, everyone suffers, and
> the artist's suffering is about his vanity and ambition. So how can
> this be objective?
because "Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the
principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself
above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle."
i'll leave you to find out who said that - and you'll be shocked. wise
words from a madman.
but - everyone suffers, and according to Nieztsche, the purpose is to
overcome the suffering, to use the suffering in the purpose of becoming
the Overman. i believe in doing so through my music. as i've often said
since i accidentally 'came out' on the list, i'm bipolar. i suffer every
day - but i couldnt remove that from my music - i hate the suffering,
but somehow i can't write without having felt the depths and heights of
Nieztsche was the same - and also suffered depression. eventually
suffering a complete breakdown - but i believe this is because nobody
understood him, because he was ahead of his time - even ahead of our times.
i'll skip the rest- except to say, why bother with the distinction
between objectivity and subjectivity. there is a point where both cross
over- in Myers-Briggs personality studies / Jungian personality studies,
such things are points along a line, not absolutes. Introversion and
extraversion are the same - there are some (like myself) who sit on the
border between the two, and could go either way (generally introversion
-- 99% of aliens prefer Earth --Eminem
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST