Re: [microsound] failure

[Oeivind Idsoe <ezueled@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Albert Tan wrote:

> i can take a bunch of my dsp-based software, create a few
> relatively nice (in my opinion) sounds, bang them out at random
> while recording it and call it microscopic music. if i'm really
> adventurous i can even have them loop in time in something like Max
> and bring stuff in and out, thus giving the impression of a
> kind of structure or composition.

But aren't you just comparing something like improv with "composition" here?
And what does "giving the impression of a kind of structure" mean? Who would
be able to seperate the actual work behind a track and the resulting
structure, without first knowing the artists intention (the fashionable thing
-- I guess this has always been fasionable, though -- is to pretend to
understand the intentional part of the work left there by the artist when
listening to/reading/watching/analysing the finished piece, but this seems
utterly impossible; the clichéd "connection" that arises when meeting a
particular piece of art -- aren't you just connecting with the
inter-subjective, the "common space" shared by Work and listener/reader, and
not the subject itself?)?

To me, it really doesn't matter whether the person responsible for a piece of
art spent X minutes/hours/days/months/years on something as long as, as
someone else also said, you are compelled to listen to the piece several
times. The seperation of "proper"/authentic composition and "false"
composition (as in pretending) seems false, or at least un-interesting, as
you'd have to bring in an implied intention to be able to seperate the two.
Besides, the artist can't monopolize the reception of his work -- the claim
that the artist has full understanding of his own work is another myth.

There are, of course, works where you can hear that a lot of time has been
spent composing/making it. For example, I just bought John Wall's brilliantly
fantastic "Constructions", and the pieces simply couldn't have been done
without minute attention to detail/structure etc. But who's to say how much of
this has actually been intentionally composed, and how much is the consequence
of glitches (there it is again), randomness, mistakes...that are then
re-inserted into the finished work?

There's always the mythical inclinations of the classical music community, who
will tell you that a work by Beethoven or Mozart is perfect in the sense that
the "potential" of the composition has been taken to its fullest, most
complete level, where no part could've been added or removed without the work
falling apart, or at the least becoming degraded in some way or another. This
is myth in the making, where one is given the impression that the harmonious
whole is perfection incarnated. But perfection in terms of what? Who, or which
processes, designed the curtain for which to measure the work against?

> here's the clincher: this will take me all but a whopping twenty
> minutes to do at most. it's easy, painless, and most people couldn't
> tell the difference between that and something that took someone several
> months to complete. on the other hand, taylor can tell in about ten
> seconds my lame-ass attempts to write ambient music as well as dan (s358)
> does. :)

But this doesn't exclude the possibility of being able to do something really
interesting in twenty minutes. You'd have to be somebody special, or, perhaps
equally important, the randomness of the world would have to be on your side,
to pull it off, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

(for example, Vladislav Delay's excellent "Ele" was supposedly recorded
live...and each track is about 15-20 minutes...which means that's
approximately how much time he's spent on each piece)

> personal taste is one thing, but how do we keep any standard of quality
> amongst ourselves? or is this impossible...?

Isn't the inter-personal "standards" of taste simply the sum/average of each
individuals taste? Perhaps a few socio-cultural-economical-psychological
concepts should be thrown into the equation, though, but I'll leave that to
someone else (anyone read Bourdieu? very simplified, he simply dismisses the
term "aesthetic" as saying something about art "in itself", and instead talks
about cultural and economical spaces as the places where "taste" is born --
what you like/dislike is a consequence of your placement within these
spheres).

> when you guys write such music, do you use anything to compare yourself
> to in terms of quality? if not, are you really an 'artist' in the positive
> sense of the word or an 'artist' in the cynical one?

Is it possible to compose something without comparing it, or at least relating
it, to "something"/someone else? No, definitely/obviously not, although the
process isn't necessarily present to the conscious mind. Because how *could*
this be possible, when you've spent all your life being (un)im-pressed with
all kinds of music (,books, movies, pictures)? I guess every artist compares
himself more or less to his own ideal, for example as found in other artists
one likes/loves. And the other side of it: comparing the worst part of what
you do to artists/genres/whatever you hate, which are again related to the
stuff you like.

Not sure I understand what an artist in the "positive" and "cynical" sense is
supposed to mean...

/Oeivind/



--Boundary_(ID_cd8nSikZgDIp9vcq5FrBzQ)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="is there a list archive?"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit