Subject: Re: (junk yard dog in) hidden place
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 18:34:20 EDT
Can totally agree with this email. IMHO, Peer Review in/outside the Academy
is meaningless within the Arts, whatever the 'belief' keepers of the various
musical canons might say. Anyway, we're usually reading past/future career
moves, which is really OK as long as we recognize it...
If I may paraphrase Prof Malone:
"We're all in it together kid". (Harry Tuttle).
family/nation state, while away with me...
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:29 pm, bill thompson wrote:
> i really don't enjoy posts where someone jumps in and
> starts shredding someone else's point of view, sort of
> like some crazed junk yard dog....
> but what the hell, can't help it.
> i'm sorry but i hear so much pretension in this
> thread. different artists have different aesthetic
> goals. it's not always that their software/hardware
> isn't up to the job. it's often more that they're
> trying to accomplish something different and thus are
> using their equipment differently, or are purchasing
> different equipment. i know more then one artist who
> spent more on a minimoog, or ems synth, than many 'ea
> composers' spent on their laptop. they didn't do that
> because they wanted to be limited by subtractive
> synthesis, but rather it's the best tool to
> accomplish their aesthetic goals. because their goals
> are different, doesn't invalidate them.
> it's of course easier to say that their
> aesthetic/equipment is impoverished and in the process
> lift oneself up a notch on the ego ladder, rather than
> trying to understand what they're attempting, why, and
> if there's anything to it for you.
> with the exception of naming b.o.c. and a label, all
> these artists, whoever THEY are, seem to have been
> lumped into one big 'them' (easier to hit i guess)
> although someone mentioned THE 'noise and drone
> artists'...didn't realize they had a union....and btw,
> noise does not necessarily equal drone, and idm is not
> even in the vicinity.
> and whose drone anyway? radigue, niblock, conrad,
> lucier, oliveros, merzbow, nakamura, young? can anyone
> really say that these artists are all the 'same'? that
> they don't have an attention to detail? aren't into
> sound? aren't innovative? who's not paying attention?
> and as to why THEY aren't into SOUND...again, who's
> they? do you know them? is it because their use of
> sound is different then how you use it? is not being
> into 'sound' mean not making everything they compose
> sound liquid? or they don't morph one sound into the
> next sound into the next sound etc...or use recordings
> of water in every composition...or use exclusively grm
> plugins and compose music that is only meant to be
> diffused live (and thus is 'gesture heavy')? or maybe
> the lack of attention to detail means that their work
> doesn't come off polished to a muzak-inducing sheen
> and actually has some live, visceral quality to it?
> see, it's easy to knock the hell out of something.
> much harder to try to understand what its goals are
> and to try to come around to appreciating it.
> i'll take a stab and say that most of the
> minimalist/experimental composers i listen to (some
> named above) are very much into sound and listening.
> their music is minimal because they have more of an
> interest in sound itself, in listening, and the subtle
> experience of this (even within a merzbow piece) than
> much of the mainstream academic ea i've heard (that
> is gesture heavy imo due to the common performance
> practice of diffusion and the lingering 'hangover' of
> instrumental/orchestral paradigms).
> often minimalist electronic composers focus more on
> sound itself, rather then gesture, and thus in order
> for the surface and deeper tones to be appreciated,
> they use longer sustained sounds..otherwise you'd miss
> the details of both the texture of the sound as well
> as much of the details within the 'drone'...they
> usually don't diffuse their music, moving the sound
> over several speakers as in much academic ea, so
> again, less gesture...their music (to me) is more
> contemplative, meant to be experienced slowly, the
> experience of time is dilated, and the details within
> a drone, or between the pauses (in say a glitch piece)
> are important, even critical.
> but the prejudice goes both ways i'm afraid...most of
> the non-academic composers that i associate with find
> much of the sound palette used by university/college
> composers to be extremely dated, homogeneous (to each
> other), cheesy, grm laden (now becoming mas/msp
> laden...and YES I CAN hear when it's a max patch),
> unsubtle, and uninspired.
> so, they don't get it either. most of them haven't
> experienced a diffusion concert where a sonic image
> seems to float right in front of their face in 3D and
> then disintegrate to various corners of the room...or
> haven't heard pieces that sound like electric cables
> being shorted out, flailing around you (that's
> visceral!), or all the other good pieces being
> performed and played.
> they also often don't appreciate that much of the
> gear/techniques they use were pioneered, researched,
> discovered, and refined by university research
> so, i think a healthier thread would be what would
> make ea stronger, better, more interesting, rather
> then how much better it is than musics that don't
> share the same goals. otherwise we may as well slam
> the tejano and grindcore bands while we're at it.
> ps...if i've offended anyone, i'm sorry. truly. i just
> have a real sensitivity to the 'aren't we better then
> them' vibe (regardless of which camp it's coming from)
> when there's so much to be appreciated and learned
> from all musics, noise, glitch, ea, experimental etc
> etc...god help us if we ever figure it out and finally
> all make the same kind of music.
> "The more you think about things the weirder they seem." -Calvin
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST