Re: [microsound] Re: Oval Commercials.

[Sean Cooper <scooper@xxxxxxxx>]

>> Can someone tell me, with all this
>> theory crap, what exactly is the intellectual motivation behind some of the
>> artists of this genre? Does anyone actually appreciate it? Or do most
people
>> listen to it for aesthetic reasons?

despite the obvious antagonism with which the question was stated, i think
the basic idea behind it is interesting enough. i know people who listen to
"microsonic" music or whatever with ears not informed by the theoretical
backdrop against which it is often discussed. (one of those people used to
be on this list and finally unsubscribed after not reading it for weeks for
that very reason.) personally i find it to be another way "in" to the music
and another plane upon which it might be considered/appreciated. this is
probably one distinction that the concept of "sound art" turns on. there is
music that i enjoy only for its emotional content, and music i appreciate
only (or mostly) for its intellectual or conceptual content (or, also, what
i'm able to "do" with it on this plane). i hate to revive this long-expired
head/heart distinction, but it's an arbitrary example.

>> I am actually curious to see what
>> people's least favorite albums of the genre are..  Mainly, just to watch
all
>> the other members of the list jump on him/her about how he/she has no
taste.

this is kind of a pointless exercise unless you're compiling an "albums to
stear clear of" list (which you may indeed be), but i can say i'm demanding
more and more of this type of music as time goes by and more and more of it
gets made. the pure-tone raster approach, for instance, has worn pretty
thin (no pun intended) with me lately, and i'm more inclined to appreciate
this in the context of a broader or more hybridized deployment (taylor
deupree's brilliant ".n" vs. the less than enthralling signal release, both
of which appeared around the same time; the song-y accomplishments of the
latest oval record vs. the drawn-out procedural riffing of much of the
zummoto record [minus the gorgeous first track and one or two others]).
we've talked about this before, the criteria by which music in this style
is deemed "good"...if anything, i think the obscure and esoteric nature of
this music reveals in some purer or more concentrated way the variety of
means by which that judgement is, or can be, made -- from the standpoint of
sound design, from the standpoint of emotional content, from the standpoint
of mathematical rigor, etc. of course, i hope that's not the best i can say
of it. pick the one that suits you.

>With regards to Oval and others and commercials: the problems with
advertising of
>this kind is that it very often (/always) empties both the pictures and
the music
>it employs. Ads result in the consumer being exposed to involuntary
snippets of
>Oval (or whoever) whenever or wherever it suits the advertisers. And they are
>exposed to it over and over again until the ad becomes boring, yesterday´s
news,
>something we´d rather forget, an annoyance. It´s everywhere, all the time
and in
>all, in the widest sense, channels, and can´t possibly maintain the
integrity of
>whatever elements it might incorporate.

perhaps. or perhaps it's a zero sum game. is oval being robbed of listeners
who might otherwise be seduced by oval music (ie, members of the tv
audience paying attention to this or that lexis or coca-cola ad)? or do
those who have "ears" for oval find something in the mediascape of interest
and possibly of value? put another way, is the combination of music and
visuals in a commercial context inherently destructive? i recall years ago
a sega commercial that used a snippet of a naked city track. i thought it
was great, if for no other reason than the thought of how much john zorn
must have been paid for its use. it was also a very well-made ad and the
music was well-suited to the pictures. and i can imagine lots of contexts
in which the appearance of esoteric music in an in-service-to-commerce
scenario might be interesting. i buy things. i "use" advertising like most
everyone else. should it only contain that which i find aesthetically
retrograde so that i needn't feel guilt in that admission? carl stone was
hired by heineken in japan to do a 1.5-minute (if memory serves) radio ad.
announcer: "the sound of music according to carl stone" (or something like
that), followed by his piece uninterrupted. i don't drink heineken, and
this probably wouldn't change my buying habits. but probably i would
"enjoy" that pause in radio programming more than, say, the sound of music
according to some for-hire commercial composer aiming for programmatic,
"commercial-ready" music (and not only for purely "aesthetic" reasons).
perhaps the broader question is: is it possible to enjoy advertising apart
from its intended purpose (or what one perceives that purpose to be)? i
hope so, given how ubiquitious it is. another: do we trust ourselves to
risk that enjoyment, or are our concerns more paternalistic than that?

a few unanswered questions i guess...something to think about anyway.

sc