RE: [microsound] |-| Re: // techniques ]]

[Tobias <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jonah & Guillaume,

G, you said:

I think you ought to answer that last question and define more clearly what
you mean by "generationalized, passed down" (at least, I'm not getting
clearly what you mean -- maybe others are...) before anybody can respond to
your main question in a meaningful way... ;)

A good question. Indeed I think the process of the patch might
answer that question better than thinking about it, although
I think that we may be "learning" more about the limits of the
system we are working within-- code, binaries --rather than
generational-code bearing itself. A process of "generations"
would have to be a process of continous mutations to the
"core," mutations that might take on characteristics of
musical metaphors for a core element-- hence Wagner, where
various motifs become uber-metaphors for entire operatic
segments; indeed one particular chain of notes in Wagner
can bring about a memory-recall of an entire emotional scene,
etc-- I am particularily thinking about the Ring series, and in
literature I can't help but think about Proust...

Anyways, I am definitely musing here, so perhaps I will
sit down & tinker & see what can happen.

As for the conversation I dropped in on with Jonah:

> > indeed what could even ever be external?
> 
> well, for example saying that this sound (which you can only hear) is
> equivalent to this symbol (which you can only see).

Well, we'll perhaps move on from inside/outside - equivalency
thinking to the next bit as it is more interesting and perhaps 
can yield to something pertaining more closely to music
production...

> 
> > Things here could get more interesting
> > if we consider how one tries to "analyse"
> > in the Western sense a system of music-
> > signification that through its differences
> > has elements that seem to be un-notational--
> > perhaps we can call this unspeakable, a gap, etc.
> > The leap here is considering these non-notational
> > aspects as inherent to the system we employ
> > for the analysis also.
> 
> please help me understand.
> are you saying that by creation of a system of 
> music-signification we imply
> that the system itself is without "unspeakable" elements?

No. I am saying that the system inherently contains its
own gaps-- unspeakable elements. (The exact opposite).
Ditto for the system of analysis.

> it seems that by definition any system of signification would be 
> "speakable"

What we recognise must be, yes, by definition; however what we 
recognise is offset, in a very basic way to think about it, against what we
don't recognise-- recognise as in cogitate, hear, understand,
un-present, etc.

> .. and rather that the fallacy is that this system leads one to 
> believe that> the things it analyzes are also speakable.

I am not sure how this follows, as I believe that you are implying 
that the music-system is purely unspeakable, or can be seen as
speakable through analysis, which is a fallacy leading from the 
analysis. Things are getting multi-levelled here & I am not sure
we are on the same one.

In any case, I find the idea of the gaps etc. in music as fascinating
in relation to microsound-- people like Richard Chartier who are
working with extreme frequencies, Noto + Ryoji Ikeda who work
with silence, Taylor Deupree who works along these lines as well--
there is an attempt, through code, this system of binaries, to
think-listen what is missing in the system...

Thanks for your time, there is a great article by Baudrillard on
this, I will try and dig it up (on ctheory)/

cheers,

tobias

:::::::s///////////t||||||------------------
tobias|saibot
http://www.shrumtribe.com
http://www.targetcircuitry.com
-------------------------------------------