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

technological mediation



> Notice that I refered not to band photos but rather to a listener 
> "picturing each of us arrayed on stage and tweaking our piles of gear" - 
> that is, suggesting to listeners by way of personnel listings and technical 
> credits a mental picture of the music as it is being made - as well as that 
> I have added "for me" and not used any imperatives.  In other words, I, as 
> a listener as well as a musician, prefer to absorb the music directly 
> rather than through the mediation of stereotypes and expectations that come 
> with hardware, software, and personnel listenings...

or, perhaps more honestly, as an artist you prefer to substitute your own
set of stereotypes and expectations for those assumed to be held by your 
listeners -- a process of mystification that you actively enjoy when you
are in the listener's position (cf. your zoviet-france
experience). nothing wrong with that, of course, but the situation is no
less "mediated."

in interviews kim has expressed some interesting ideas about concepts
like mystification and technological mediation when it comes to electronic
music, particularly from a historical perspective. and, of course, this
discussion helps beg the question of why, historically, we
have required our artists to list their materials along with their
works. buy a record and more often than not the instruments are
included. go to an art gallery and you will know what was done with what
and on what surface. why? what purpose does this serve, both historically
and in the present? do we gain anything useful by knowing this? if so,
what is the use to which such knowledge can be (or "is," in terms of an
inevitability) put?

sorry to sound like a college midterm exam...

sc