Re: [microsound] failure redux

[Sean Cooper <scooper@xxxxxxxx>]

>And what exactly are these "serious listeners?"  I suspect the definition
>is just a bit circular, as in:  "serious listeners" are those who know
>"good music," while "good music" is that which "serious listeners"
>determine to be so.
>
>We, being here, become self-appointed "serious listeners," but is not the
>reaction of a "casual user" equally valid?  Music made only for "serious
>listeners" tends to seek self-righteousness in claustrophilic insularity.

i think this was meant as a sort of short-hand for people who have put a
lot of time and energy into exploring the range of computer music artists,
styles, approaches, histories, etc. as democratic as we might like to think
we can be about "taste," there exist a range of very real distinctions
between good and bad within the context of certain broad determinations of
what constitutes a particular approach to composition, sound design, etc.
to see this in action, play a mego cd for someone who has had little to no
exposure to computer or even electronic music. he or she is likely to
reject it out of hand for lack of an understanding of or interest in, for
instance, the syntax (i.e., the sounds), the compositional properties
(i.e., the form), etc. it's tempting to say simply "well, it's bad *to
them*," but this is lazy and uncritical thinking. aesthetic value is a
function of human determinations, to be sure, but it's not enough to simply
stop there. (indeed, it's precisely *because* of the role of human
determinations that one can't simply stop there.) instead, for me,
something akin to what deleuze (sorry) calls "an image of thought" is
helpful. philosophers stand or fall on the image of thought they construct,
an activity deleuze actually likens to music in terms of composition,
harmony, resonance, etc. musicians work similarly--they invent a new image
of thought (actually, of affects, but the distinction is minor for purposes
of this discussion) through their music, and the value of what they create
derives from the arrangement and functioning of that image. each image is
necessarily in dialogue with others in the larger field of aesthetic
production, which means the work of "coming to terms" with them each is
complicated. but to merely accept the work of all artists -- the images of
thought they construct -- as inherently equal is to fail to engage that
work seriously. in this respect, i would define serious listeners as those
who have decided to engage music in this way. and the music those listeners
determine to be "good" is, at least in theory, music that lends itself to
and withstands serious consideration. again, it doesn't make that music any
better than, say, music that doesn't withstand such scrutiny. nor does the
music deemed valuable according to such determinations thereby displace all
other music as inferior. it refers to an image of thought which finds value
in the potential for music to "work" in a specific way. solipsistic? no
more or less than any other method of cultural judgement...

sc

onnow: fennesz/o'rourke/rehberg : the magic sound of fenn o'berg (mego)
--Boundary_(ID_cd8nSikZgDIp9vcq5FrBzQ)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] failure redux"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit