Re: [microsound] texture as narrative???

[dion workman <sigmaed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What I find interesting about Kim's question and the subsequent postings
proposing to address the problem of "texture as narrative" is the
assumption that a narrative structure is involved at all. Kenric McDowell
began a posting by wondering if what is being talked about can be
considered narrative but then went on to propose comparisons of musical
narratives to other types of narratives. All other postings have just
accepted the premise that the type of music being discussed involves a
narrative structure.

The effect of this assumption can been seen in later postings: " definetly,
repetitive cycles will provide an easy sense of forward motion...". Now, it
is not at all clear to me that repetitive cycles do create a sense of
forward motion if you do not begin from the assumption that you are dealing
with narrative (i.e. movement). In fact I would like to suggest that
repetition does the exact opposite: it potentially allows the listener to
get rid of ideas about movement in, or through, space and to listen inside
pure duration, or, in other words, time bearing no relation to space.
Repetition in its most basic form, i.e. a single loop repeating, fixes a
listeners attention on a phrase or tone or rythym that does not change,
does not move anywhere. I am sure everyone is familiar with the feeling of
listening to a really effective loop and losing yourself inside it -
becoming unaware of the time that passes, forgetting where the loop point
is, hearing more and more - the loop doesn't change, there is no movement
in the music so what actually takes place? I think the answer is that
repetition allows us to forget ourselves, forget what we are listening for,
to listen without expectations (of course, we already know what is going to
happen) and therefore to become better recipients to feel the
suggestiveness of the music. This would seem to be the logic behind
hypnotism and the repetition of mantras in meditation as well.

So the question now is: what happens in music where there is movement? say,
complex combinations of loops, or even the repetition of two loops where
the loop points shift in relation to each other, drones that are not
repetitive etcetera. It seems to me that in listening to pieces of music or
found sounds of the types I have just listed I have often experienced
comparable sensations to sensations felt while listening to single loops
repeating so maybe this idea of movement needs to be looked at more closely.

Change is not necessarily movement. I admit that change is a clumsy word to
use as it seems to imply movement or progression but you will have to bear
with me as I can't think of a more appropriate term for what I am trying to
say. We monitor movement in relation to our bodies, our bodies become the
centre of the universe and everything moves in relation to us. This seems
quite straight forward when talking of optical sensations but perhaps more
difficult when discussing auditory sensations. Maybe it is less difficult
if you remember that to measure things it is necessary to place them in
space. To measure is to plot points and it is by the addition of these
points that we can perceive movement. To know that a tone has "moved" I
must mentally plot points by which I can measure this movement. If the
sensations permeate one another, flow into one another, if I do not
mentally plot them, where is the movement? If you do not seperate out the
parts and compare them with one another as individual parts then the
changes remain imperceptible. It will be easy to think back and realise a
change has occured but this requires that you stop listening for the time
it takes to recall what has happened. (Another familiar experience for many
of us may be that of only realising how much a piece of music has changed
when the needle hits the run out groove). To stop listening and recall the
past may seem to take almost no time at all but the important thing is that
a break has occurred. In constructing movement it is necessary to rupture
pure duration and spatialise the sensation. And movement must be
constructed for if we did not attempt to measure it we would not perceive
it.

Listening, unlike looking, does not require us to place the sensation in
space although out of habit we often do, and, I would suggest, successful
pieces of music are often successful precisely because they keep us from
lapsing into bad listening habits. Music presents the possibility of
suspending the normal flow of our sensations. We are ego-centric beings -
we perceive movement by placing ourselves at the centre of the universe -
but music prompts us to forget our personalities and perceive sensations
without a centre, for if we are not talking about space then it makes no
sense to talk of a centre.

So, is texture narrative? No, in itself it is not narrative. It can be used
as a component in a narrative structure but only at the expense of the
quality that allows us to perceive sensations in a way that we rarely do
i.e. sensations perceived without spatial relationships. For me, this is to
remove the quality that makes music such a powerful art form. Successful
music holds my attention precisely because I stop thinking about why I am
paying attention.



p.s. apologies for the long winded nature of this email. It seemed
necessary to write a long letter in order to respond to Kim's question and
even then I think in parts further explaination is needed. In particular I
think my use of the term duration or the concept of pure duration would
benefit from a thorough explaination but to do this would double or triple
the length. And if I havn't put you to sleep already that surely would.

Dion Workman.