[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] microsonic materialism



i think the reason that these word are being used to describe the sounds is because
microsound_constructs (the individual sounds them selves) are indefinable using
traditional musical jargon. the sounds themselves sound like the words used to
describe them (odomonopieia?), and the sounds themselves tend to be more organic and
chemical sounding (simultaneously) in nature. previously in music, there were
traditional instruments, tangible instruments, whose sound could be described in an
identifiable way associated to the instrument - guitar "like", piano "like" ect.
even when these instruments were effected (processed) their origin was from a
tangible object (physical instrument, abet effected). with the advent of computers
involved in sound creation & design, and the diversity of sounds they can create,
instead of describing them abstractly (really spacey computer sound - which could
mean anything, as opposed to : really spacey guitar sound which has more of an
identifiable connotation, vague yes, but more concrete) the use of words from nature
and chemistry seems logical: abstract sound source requires more a tangible
description for the source itself tends to breathe no light on the actual nature of
the sound.

as for examples, i'd start with some of the artists here on the list, akira
rabelais, taylor deupree, also the old standbys (...) and do some research with the
software - grainwave, thonk, AL, metasynth... (sorry - don't know any PC apps...) if
you haven't already.

hope this helps,

rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.transelectronic.net

mitchell whitelaw wrote:

> i have a proto-theory (more of a hunch) which i'd like to put to the
> list. it concerns a metaphor which is drawing lots of support among
> microsound / glitch / post-digital / experimental electronic
> music-makers and listeners:
>
> seems that here, digital sound is figured a kind of _matter_. of course
> digital audio is "material" for the music-makers (it's stuff they make
> stuff with), but it seems that often artists and reviewers talk about
> this music in terms of physical, substantial matter... and in particular
> a sense of microscopic or atomic matter: grains, dust, liquids,
> polymers, the noises of brownian motion...
>
> this comes out in kim c's "residualism", and also in his recent post
> about "glitches"... of course a glitch is an event which gets us close
> to the matter of the medium (like a record pop or even pole's infamous
> waldorf-crackles). the metaphor is also rife in tools and technologies:
> granular synthesis (possibly the key microsonic technique?) and terrain
> synthesis are two examples. it also comes out in "data music" like eM,
> which sonifies digital information (we're hearing the substance of that data)...
>
> what do you think? i'm after nice examples of microsonic materialism but
> also really good counter-examples, anything that makes this idea look
> wrong, obvious or overstated.
>
> *note* as well as making conversation, i should confess that i'm picking
> your collective brains for a reason: i'm giving a presentation/paper on
> this topic at an upcoming event here in sydney. i promise i'll cite you
> properly, and if you're nice i'll plug your latest release.
>
> cheers,
>
> mitchell whitelaw ::::::: http://www.spin.net.au/~mitchellw
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org