Re: [microsound] |-| Re:eR [microsound] autechre/richard devine// techniques ]]

[Greg <gregg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Innovation/originality vs. emulation/ripping-off are terms of reference
that
> > really only work when applied to rock criticism. They have absolutely no
> > place in the world of microsound or systems music.
>
> Really ? Then how come so much "microsound" sounds so samey ? You don't
think there
> are a bunch of key figures in microsound (Gunter, Ikeda, Oval, Farmers
Manual, etc.)
> which there's a lot of emulating of going on these days ? I'd call Oval
systems music
> and there sure is a lot of skipping cds stuff around these days.

In whose view? Isn't this like saying that all indie-guitar bands sound the
same? or all free-jazz groups sound the same. Prehaps they do. This is
besides the point. For every album of skipping CDs, only Oval sounds like
Oval... any attempt to mirror that sound thus fails, leading to a new
mutation and soundtype. Super-splintering of genre occurs under such
conditions and is a totally healthy and 'natural' development.

Considering the number of parameters involved, specific forms of computer
music are *very* difficult to accurately emulate. Guitar-rock music has been
around for some fifty + years and in many ways is still the dominant
paradigm. modern computer/systems music is much younger, but people are
already saying it all sounds the same? This seems pretty bizarre to me.

one of the reasons I love this music is that I have no idea what i'm about
hear from whoever is producing it. predicatibility isn't an issue.

maybe a few people are suffering from the music journalist disease? it's
like reading record reviews in the Wire. they're generally so damn
depressing because the old guard of writers have become pretty jaded.

anyhow,
 g.