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

Re: [microsound] off-icmc discourse



1)  i may be the one who usually opens cans of worms on mailing lists,
but outside of christophe charles' & reinhold friedl's unfortunately
heated discussion, there is not much to be added about the debate unless
one has a particularly brilliant idea of how things may be done better ~
in this sense, i found interesting that mr. charles mentions how he has
offered advice to mr. friedl, who in turn ignored it.  has there been a
miscommunication?  probably.  it may be worth noting that "event
organizers" & artists usually have their own agendas: one wants
attendance while the other wants artistic freedom; & it's a risky
equation because both don't necessarily go hand in hand.

2)  oeivind mentions the "one hundred thousand microsound releases
coming out each week", & while i wonder where he sees so many (even
counting invisible cd-r issues, i doubt there's more than 20), a notable
point is raised concerning, once again, conflicting agendae.  on the one
hand you have artists wishing to release something which they deem
worthwhile (& it will be up to the listener to decide whether they find
something to touch them in their work) & on the other you have record
labels who first decide what listeners they want to please to, & then
construct a catalogue around that.

3)  netochka makes use of the "plantation style system" metaphor, which
is an apt way to represent some sort of a dictatorial plan for
organizing art for optimal productivity/rentability.  remember: we are
already genetically engineering pop music for optimal mass-consumption. 
there is a danger that this method be imported into microsound (or any
underground movement forgetting about its ethics).

4)  as beautiful as our little microsonic music can be, it has the
advantage to fit into a fairly simple mold: witness how easily the
ritornell cover design fits all the music published on it: as convenient
as this can be, it also has the nasty effect of turning the music into a
by-product of the packaging.  alternately, not all forms of microsonic
music are treated equally: a certain clique effect begins to form
itself, prefferences are codified & the genre is constrained rather than
expanded.  for one, the listener will value personal expression in
theory but in practice will encourage whatever they like listening to. 
but then distribution is never optimal for everyone: with all due
respect, if one can only find "cathode flower" in their local store then
they may just think that kim cascone is all there is in the field.

5)  on the other hand: these things (cds, festivals) are costy.  you've
got to make choices.  i think at a certain point, you've got to question
what being a "star" of this system really means: that you've somehow
"made it" out of sheer talent?  or that you've had luck, experience,
resources...?  it's probably both, but sometimes it's one more than the
other.  what it certainly does _not_ mean is that if someone didn't
"make it" then they're not worth your time.  unfortunately this is what
usually happens, because not only is our purse empty, but our time is
limited, & shall i add, our brains are tired.

6)  hence the return to my original question: how can things be done
better?  i think one important point is that of dialogue; that the
"planters" (to continue the metaphor) know what the "planted" seek to
achieve & not hesitate to listen to "unknown" varieties (so as to not
fall into a certain sort of eugenism); & inversely that the "planted" be
aware of financial constraints inherent to that sort of activity.  art
commercialization is always a compromise for everyone involved; but so
should everything be.

~ david