RE: [microsound] compassion for hard work

[Dave Cronin <Dave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

well said.
you've won your second fan of the day, i guess.

don't despair. 

there are plenty of us out here with our headphones on, 
quietly waiting for the "political" posturing to subside, 
"here for the sounds", like ms. 263.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunnar Garness [mailto:ggarness@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 5:33 PM
> To: microsound; plateaux@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [microsound] compassion for hard work
> 
> 
> 
> > > Yeah GG! , I'm here for the sounds, and you boys are just 
> silly to think
> > > otherwise!  I KNOW some of you live for  the politics, 
> well, that's your
> > > perogative, it's all a myth to keep you busy anyway.
> >
> > I think you´ve misunderstood, then, as this list per se is rather
> > silent in
> > terms of actual, physical sound. We´re not swapping sound bi/ytes.
> 
> That's funny, I understood her point perfectly.  Sounds to me 
> like she's
> SIMPLY stating (which seems refreshingly rare on this list 
> with all the
> obtuse academic theory du jour being tossed around) that your 
> work can be
> appreciated on many levels outside of the rarefied 
> theoretical frameworks
> that you seem to worry about so much.
> 
> > And the politics? If what you mean is the typical "I just want to
> > read about
> > the music, man", you're already on your way into politics. A
> > review of a record
> > or a concert is already an attempt, or could be an attempt, to
> > establish some
> > sort of political (understood in the broadest sense, of course)
> > stance, and all
> > talk about any aesthetic object will inevitably lean against
> > projecting your
> > impression of the world onto the world.
> 
> Sorry Oivind, (and sorry I couldn't figure out that O-slash 
> character)  but
> some of us still believe in the value of "aesthetic objects." 
>  What your
> point was about them I can't say because your message doesn't 
> make sense to
> me.  I suspect from all the previous dialogs that it was some sort of
> political objection to aesthetics.  I still stand by my 
> assertion that the
> music that you make (that supposedly manifests or represents political
> theories) is not necessarily the music we, the listeners, hear.
> 
> I know it is unfashionable to not use an interdisciplinary 
> approach to all
> studies but I've seen enough of that already.  At some point 
> we have to
> realize for the good of our own disciplines that music IS NOT 
> political
> theory, visual art IS NOT the same thing as philosophy, and 
> architecture IS
> NOT literary theory (on the latter I can speak with some 
> authority).  It
> seems nobody wants to be associated with "aesthetics," nobody wants to
> engage in the "star system," and nobody wants to be seen 
> dealing with the
> musical "tradition" on this list.  That's fine, but I really 
> don't think you
> can escape them.  Music (physical sound, audio, whatever you 
> want to call
> it) is an artifact and it has a life of it's own that will at 
> some point be
> out of your control.
> 
> Besides, I like Rebecca's attitude and I think it's 
> refreshing.  I think
> she'd be far more fun to hang with at a party than some of 
> the humorless
> people on this list!
> 
> with respect...
> 
> Gunnar Garness
> ggarness@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>