Re: Postmoderinism : Revised quick guide


Subject: Re: Postmoderinism : Revised quick guide
From: Morgan Sutherland (skiptracer@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 14:33:07 EDT


That confuses me even further. I liked the original explanation which
was apparently wrong?

On 10/4/05, andre_mc@alcor.concordia.ca <andre_mc@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> WOW!
>
> IMM that might be the clearest, most concise explanation of postmoderinsim that
> I have read.
>
> the boundary references that are usually present in PM explanations (ie
> qualifications so as to avoid dispute regarding other PM definitions), dissolve
> into the whole of the explanation.
>
>
> 2 cents for what its worth
>
> andrew
>
>
> From eliot Handelman>>
>
> >
> > I'm trying to help clarify a few topics in musical postmodernism offering
> > a (of course) idiosyncratic interpretation. I don't want argue about
> > 12-tone music.
> >
> > PM is to me mostly about problems of communication in the light of
> > the circumstances of the world we inhabit. It's not about a style.
> >
> > One important issue is that whereas the world *is* going somewhere,
> > we're at the beginning of the most radical social revolution that ever
> > happened,
> > escalating changes, etc.
> >
> > In the Ferrari interview that someone mentioned, Ferrari said:
> >
> > "I think 1968 benefitted from our action."
> >
> > May 68 is in fact THE event that defines the enlightenment impulse in all
> > later discussions of postmodernism, especially when french writers are
> > concerned.
> >
> > This was still the moment when artists "were the antennae of the race,"
> > in Pound's phrase.
> > By making your little noises you were somehow helping to create a new
> > feeling about the
> > kinds of freedoms that were possible and which should be taken (see also
> > F.'s comments
> > about a workshop realization of Tautologos 3 "I am free, you know ...")
> > and which eventually WERE taken.
> >
> > Postmodernism, in some (I think important) ways, means "post-68".
> >
> > One paradox of postmodernism is that in many ways art DID succeed in its
> > social views about creative liberation. Everyone can now be an artist on
> > their
> > own terms and find their own public. This was totally not true even in
> > Ferrari's day -- the GRM said about "presque rien 1": "it wasn't music."
> >
> > Of course F laughs about this, as do we, because how can it not be music
> > if someone
> > says it is? Do we require anything more? I may not like it ... but to
> > challenge its
> > ontology --- to situate music in some space beyond its actual practice?
> > People used to
> > talk about "the rules of music," but nowadays we say "the rules of a
> > style" and what we
> > probably mean has something more to do with Chomsky than with parallel
> > fifths.
> >
> > So one aspect of postmodernism is : art has become a "social practice", or,
> > of course, many social practices.
> >
> > At the same time, if I may say so, this is exactly NOT how that part of
> > the world
> > that is organizing our revolution works. Let's take one example -- the
> > protocol.
> >
> > Eg, TCP/IP or 'the "information processing paradigm" of cognitive science,
> > etc. Standardization can have enormous power to create foundations on
> > which things
> > can be built.
> >
> > Now we get into the "blank slate" problem. If we are, in fact, purely
> > social organisms,
> > then we have infinite freedom to say who we are and to become whatever
> > we want.
> >
> > If we are actually complex machines with built-in programs, our freedom is
> > illusory or, to put it in a different way: there is such a thing as
> > music. It's music
> > not because someone says so, but because we can observe the music part
> > of the
> > brain doing something when we scan ourselves.
> >
> > Postmodernism in music means to me: address this discrepancy.
> >
> > Of course there are also many ways of thinking about PM as "the end of
> > ..." but
> > I'm personally much more interested in "the beginning of ..."
> >
> > PM is NOT, to me, importantly about "there are 10 million active
> > composers at present,
> > and all of these different styles, so how to make your mark." NOT.
> >
> > PM is likely to be: there is no distinction between producer and
> > consumer. Excuse
> > me while I kiss the sky.
> >
> > Or composing will become a kind of serious research in a way that it
> > never was.
> >
> > Or new kinds of virtuality.
> >
> > Or the ability to confer technical possibilities on everyone.
> >
> > These things all have one common issue -- listener-centricity.
> >
> > To me that's the single most important issue surrounding the problem of
> > postmodernism.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >In other words, 9/13 of postmodernism is still modernism.
> > >
> > >
> > We only ever have intimations of postmodernism -- the quote from the
> > Gibson book
> > I was mentioning earlier. It's an imaginative sweep at present, not a
> > product.
> >
> > >Okay, but postmodernism includes a vast swath of everything, making it
> > >possible to pick and choose what can be perceived.
> > >
> > Picking and choosing is a kind of listener-centricity -- remember what
> > one of the punks
> > around here said a few years ago -- that arranging songs in playlists is
> > a creativity of no
> > different order than anything else. There's something to that.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Of course, I've also made the claim many times that this is a Golden Age of
> > >new music.
> > >
> > >
> > Well I totally believe that this is THE time to be living if you're
> > interested in music, on
> > whatever level, composer, listener, student. There was never a moment
> > with greater possibility
> > than right now. And the possibilities are going to increase.
> >
> >
> >
> > >I'm still typing as your messages come in. Something like, "there's no such
> > >thing as a theory of music that isn't, in the first place, a theory of
> > >musical quality." The advantage of postmodernism is its charming lack of a
> > >theory of music, so that quality never need come into question.
> > >
> >
> > On my terms, hit song science is postmodern. It's not my kind of theory,
> > because it doesn't provide
> > any kind of explanation, and it's not a good theory because it has no
> > power to predict
> > what might interest people other than through the framework of what they
> > previously liked, but it is a theory
> > in the sense of predicting quality. This kind of thing WILL increase.
> >
> > producer-centric free-for-all-ism to my mind is only a transitional
> > phase of postmodernism.
> > Things are due to change.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>The underlying idea is that we should not allow our social world to
> > >>instigate parameters
> > >>on truth for us. Instead this must be individually accessible.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >You're the intelligence theory guy, so I'll not be able to hold my own in a
> > >discussion about how an individual can even be identified as such without
> > >being part of a 'social world to instigate parameters on truth'.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > By thinking? By doing research? Do I allow my bosses to tell me what
> > problems I'm allowed
> > to think about? Am I afraid of not getting tenure? Do my student reviews
> > affect me? Am I afraid
> > of not getting the grant because what I'm doing doesn't fit in? Am I
> > able to evaluate research on my
> > own, or should I check to see how many times the article was cited? Can
> > I spot the flaw? Does
> > it disagree with my own experience? Do I have some way of evaluating the
> > plausibility of my
> > theorizations other than appealing to a peer-review committee?
> >
> > -- eliot
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew McCallum
> almaudio@videotron.ca
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST