Re: [microsound] popularity of new music + liner notes & theory

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

> > in the meantime, if your favorite artist likes to whore themselves for a
> > slavery-driven corporation every once in a while, that's mostly their
> > problem; if they can take the heat, by all means shall they go for it;
> i don't think "whoring" was the most objective way to describe it david.
> it's relative to the individual.  not only should we allow an artist to make
> the desicions, we should not automatically denounce it as whoring.  there
> are fair minded organizations and companies out there that i'm sure others
> would not mind have their work attached to.  you do refer to them as
> "slavery-driven corporations", so hopefully you are not referring to any and
> all businesses as a collective.

i think what i meant is that if the corporation you work for, either
directly or indirectly, has no ethics, no clue about collective interest
or decent worker conditions or environment & so on (this is what i mean
by "corporate slavery"; it is not a statement about every corporation),
then you ought to question your own ethics, & whether you're really
trying to do something good (knowingly or not) or if all you want is to
cash the damn cheque, which is a nice way to say "whoring": it means you
know what you're doing (or helping do) but ultimately don't agree or
would rather do something else.  i doubt that many artists are out there
genuinely aiming to help the cause of corporate slavery.  the point is
that working for the guy who contributes in maintaining half the planet
in utter poverty (economic, physical, mental) is not always
constructive.  but ultimately you're right: whoring sure is not an
objective term to use.

but that'll be my last word on a topic which has already been dragged on
far enough.  one of those "eternally inconclusive" debates.  i sort of
liked the theory debate though, but there's way too much name-calling. 
i liked the gist of ekkehard ehlers' notes in "betrieb".  a dry read,
but enlightening: to him minimalism is not about reduction but about
freedom.  a nice way to see it, & it has given me some ideas.

mille plateaux is about theory, but as they seem to see it, any theory
is good so long as it's spelled out properly (& i don't mean english
syntax but simple understandability & relevance).  the text in "clicks &
cuts" i found a bit thin.  but i still appreciate the spelling out
part.  i like to think that some composers/musicians/critics out there
think about their/others' music (be it afterwards) & give it a worded
shape.  the liner notes may even be a crucial key insofar as explaining
the context in which some music should be seen; this doesn't make that
music any less worthwhile or interesting.  hell, in
electroacoustic/acousmatic music circles, liner notes are almost
systematic, mostly due to the explorative, unmapped nature of the work. 
paul dolden said that he feels like he is reinventing the wheel
everytime he starts a new piece.  another example: the fantastic liner
notes in the evidence cd reissues of sun ra & the arkestra, which do
much to explain the historical context.  or more this-listy, the
concise, jumbled text from kim cascone in "maschinelle stratageme" (mp
again...).  to a point even packaging is theory: mego has understood
this, & so have phthalo & touch (& especially the sublabels).  if we can
"dance to architecture" then we can "design about music", can't we?

theory is not necessary but it is always welcome in my book: at worse i
won't agree, or i won't understand a damn thing, which is unfortunate
but not the end of the world.  at its best, theory undermines the
hegemony of "entertainment": it exposes its inner mechanisms, brings an
explanation, coolly hacks into the magic.

shutting up now.  sleep.

~ david