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

Re: poor mr. pita, look what you've done to him...



hello -
since i get the belated digest, i thought i'd drop in another two cents to
all this -

first -  and it seems to surface so often here and on the lowercase list -
is the argument of liner notes and the artist giving you printed
information or no information on how something was made -

and second, this kind of technical credit that has surfaced with the pita
argument -

i would think in computer music, there is a similar kind of geek as in any
form of music that can have a kind of cultish following - the guy (or girl)
who wants to know not only who played guitar, but what kind of guitar, what
kind of delay pedal, etc. the more tiny liner notes, the better to be able
to obsess over everything technical or otherwise. i know a lot of jazz fans
who can name recording dates, etc. for me this is all not so interesting.
it seems that half the posts on this list are in regards to technical data
for making work - this is different information than what you should expect
on the inside of a cd.

i really think that to have this all develop over the work of pita is quite
funny, because his work has been praised here so often. and this whole
notion of someone else writing a patch seems to me to be as big of a
revelation as finding out bill clinton didn't inhale - what's the
difference if you still like the work. the guy who made the patch hasn't
made a record that has been discussed on the list to the best of my
knowledge - and i am sure that if he did it would be different than pita's.


i think it is funny that poor pita has to 'set the record straight' - he
already had set it straight when he made work that interested most of you -
the magic is in the music. it isn't about  refrigerators, dj's, sampling,
etc. it is about what the artist is presenting to you as a work of art -
and in this way the duchamp thing, which i also initially felt was totally
irrelevant, kind of makes sense because as much as a urinal questions our
notions of sculpture; it seems that pita's presentation of a patch (not
using a cumputer for my work i have no idea what a patch actually is!) is
questionable to some of you as 'music' or sound art. it is never about
being the first one or claiming some kind of virgin territory for oneself.
anyone with a $30 soundmaker program can make oodles of oval tracks, but so
far no one has done an oval-like record that we all like and think is
original. it is the nature of this kind of music to use programs and
equipment designed to do one simple task that will specifically change
'sound' in one's work - but hey that is why guitar freaks used a boss pedal
or a dod pedal.

the notion that this thing plays itself and that makes it only the property
of the programmer is ludicrous - look at colin nancarrow's work for player
pianos - everyone knew what a player piano could do, but he has taken it
totally beyond the expectation of what could be done with that machine.
perhaps pita has done the same thing with this patch. having to defend
oneself in terms of having some influence on the making of the patch seems
rather crazy to me. i thought this kind of justification ended when one got
out of graduate school! how in this day and age can anyone question the
authenticity or authorship of any work. there is no moral right or wrong to
using a program someone else devised  - should we be prosecuted for not
naming the brand of the refrigerator or the city in a field recording -
hopefully it is what one does with this material that is interesting - and
i would suspect again that in the case of the folks on this list, pita has
proven all this by your constant interest in the work itself. what has he
done with it that makes it his own - perhaps it is the music, perhaps it is
only the package or the presentation of the music - but whatever it is, the
general concensus is that it works...

on my new cd i used only bernhard gunter's details agarandis as my source
material for a few tracks - it has been completely transformed beyond any
recognition - and i state that i used this material in the booklet - but i
didn't state how i tranformed it (i even forgot to put in there that i
didn't use a computer to really confound folks :-). personally, i can't see
how this knowledge would help you appreciate my work - i can't answer the
argument for or against text or information at this point. i think when
someone is simply justifying what they are doing there is a tendency to
appear to be 'claiming territory' for oneself and this can be problematic
indeed - possibly what gunnar is talking about. i also think at some point
the text can be much more interesting than the work itself and this for me
is extremely problematic (probably also what gunnar is talking about).
interesting and good to talk about do not define the ultimate listening
experiences in my book. but classical music has a history of liner and
composer's notes that tend to contextualize work and process and i think it
can be rather enlightening - not for the listening part, but for the
thinking part later. i have always had rather exptensive notes in my works
and my intention is always to humbly lay bare what the ideas were that
inspired my work. some enjoy it, some kick my ass over it. i view it as
humble and truthful, others as pretentious. we can never please everyone
and there is not a simple answer to this part of the discussion, which i
think is why it surfaces so often. i do think that in the vote department,
most non-artists couldn't care less how pita makes his work. they simply
want to listen to it. since i don't even know what i patch is, i will chalk
one vote up there from myself as well.
thanks for listening, sorry if i ranted a bit.
steve






steve roden/in be tween noise
box 50261 pasadena california 91115-0261
usa
phone 626 403 9343
please note, we have no more fax.
e-mail:sroden@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"the eyes transmit thoughts, therefore i shut them from time to time in
order to stop having to think"
robert walser
..