Re: [microsound] AE_thingy: more points

[TCK <guitardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The kind of scattershot half-attended-to listening discussed here:


> "fast brain" mode of
>    listening which is needed to succesfully navigate the information
>    rich/overloaded/quick cut/simulacre/realityTV mediascape we're immersed
>    in...deep listening ala Oliveros is an attempt to separate the signifier
>    from the signified (or listening from categorizing) and is an anachronistic
>    mode of listening that doesn't work with electronica...electronica operates
>    on fast production and consumption cycles and "speed listening" is how one
>    tends to ingest it: as sound-bites, needle drops and
>    wallpaper...soundtracks, commericials, on tv, layered, beat-matched and
>    mixed into dancefloors, during the daily commute, in a store while
>    shopping, while at work, while online, etc..today we absorb information via
>    viral transmission not via soft focus new-age listening...
>

Kim describes a coping mechanism and the one could add (in a values neutral
way),

there ain't no reality on TV
This isn't the 60s and WalterCronkite® is a concept that faded.

The music that is "fuct up" although helping me cope with a world where war
criminals deliver eulogies on CIANN, is unreal. Kind of "fast surreal," or
"serial dada" eh?  Not only elecronica is perceived this way today.

It reminds me that I heard this term once when a man was struggling to
describe how he felt being in bed with 4 women after a wild night of
drinking.  Talk about coping....

The process of listening has at its core a dialectic and Kim is right that the
more you bring to the task of understanding a piece the more you find. But is
there really ever "full" understanding?  Even leaving aside temporality?
This dialectic exists between the artist and his/her audience, and many
artists just (well, understandably) hate it.

If you distance yourself from the world of TP&A (trains...) you could probably
really enjoy the arhoolie again.  If a gear turned in the forest, would it
still be beautiful?

anechoic wrote:

>  interesting to read all the gear trainspotting in response to my
> email which is a good indicator that this genre of music cannot operate
> culturally without reference to the tools used to create it...

and yet it does

>
> "Beefheart's fucking techno,"
> he says, almost to himself, assembling another spliff.

sarcasm, another coping mechanism

I also read and found truth in ben's post:


> in traditional japanese art there is two primary schools of thinking when it
> comes to defining genius of an artist.  one has a transparent nature to it.
> the volume along with with shining moments defines a genius.  the other, of
> course, is that artist can be considered a genius even if there is only one
> piece available to study granted that piece is worthy.  baseball has this
> similar argument with the hall fame.  the beginnings of a quality vs quanity
> debate.
>

So intent is part in the calculation of appreciation, and intent is best
taught by the artist, wouldn't you think?

> now, as stated above, this breaks down when money is being exchanged for all
> this, as does a lot of notions about art.  however, it is instructive and
> relative to the debates when have all seen concerning process vs. end
> product.
>

ja mense so very f*ing tru

this idea on fodder too:


> i rather find it hard to determine when a composition
> is done or not.  generally, a piece is done for me when i lose interest in
> it.
>
Great day yesterday on this list, although I am fairly new to it, I am quite
happy to get it and I thank Kim (again) - for starting it all going
yesterday...... and everyone else.  Tim