AE patches and cute squirrels

[anechoic <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

some more thoughts on tools and categories:

I think maybe I'm not being clear...the term "tool" is just an
abstraction...it could be a particular type of paint brush or it could be a
photoshop filter...it doesn't matter but the fact is that we have been
acclimated to the digital mediasphere via cable, mobile telephony,
Internet, DVD, mini-disc whatever and they are all media "tools"...as an
example: it is a cultural comment/statement to release music on
mini-disc...the tool enters into the reading very directly due to the fact
that the media will only play on the mini-disc format...the decision to
release something on that format (it could have easily been 8 track) is
also part of the contextual reading of the work...digital media has to be
read as such or you have been living in a cave for the past 20 years and
have missed out on the development of digital culture...even without
knowing what a "patch" is or what "DSP" is or what "granular synthesis" is
one knows that software (a tool) was used in the making of the content...to
be culturally aware means being able to read a work and to access it's
irony (how po-mo)...for me the term "tool" is an abstraction, shorthand
for: "software technology", being informed by new technology, operating on
the surface of a technological language etc...the abstraction becomes the
message/comment in some work (how many Cher vocoder pop-hit knock-offs are
there? the vocoder tool becomes a message in all these pop songs)...
q: how many rave flyers did we see in the early 90's that were made by kids
working with nothing more than Photoshop + Kai Power Tools? didn't we all
think: "Photoshop"? wouldn't the tool be the message there?

anyone making glitch is by default a "sound designer" and approaches the
act of creation with a specific language and personal syntax based on the
conections made via their perceptual apparatus via the context(s) they
operate in...

ear vs brain = cerebral vs emotional...leaving the "brain" out of the act
of listening is being a passive consumer...some choose to load meaning thru
emotional content into their music while others only want to express ideas
(Copland vs Schoenberg)...besides, making the distinction between brain &
ear is categorizing and as far as I can see it these two operate on a
continuum...but it is human nature to categorize...Pimmon CD's don't go
into the Country & Western section at Tower...glitch is a category...this
list falls into a category...we always fit things into categories in order
to switch our perceptual modes to the appropriate context (this also calls
into play the concepts of "intent" and "expectation")...categorization also
ocurrs in the moment of creation...by choosing a tool we are selecting a
categorical framework: laptop: axe du jour of electronic music...a Martin
acoustic guitar (sans processing) wouldn't be electronic music...this
"otherness" implies categorical representation; difference...

back to tools: consumption without "reading the ingredients" is passive
consumerism and if we are to take part in digital culture we will be left
out on the joke unless we understand the subtext gained from a deeper
reading of media...case in point: "All your base are belong to us"...it
operates on multiple levels and without exposure to Internet-irony one
would not understand the abstracted meaning...so the tool (Zero Wing vid
game) becomes the meaning and when placed in the context of the Internet
the phrase becomes "overloaded"...
hip-hop is now commonly used in advertising...the tool is the turntable and
most of the sounds/effects heard by Joe and Betty armchair consumers are
attributed to said tool...it doesn't matter that samplers, and maybe even
Max/MSP was used to make the track...hip-hop=turntable in the minds of most
consumers and therefor the turntable (a tool) becomes a cultural reference
(turntables were affordable to aspiring DJ's in the poor parts of urban
centers)...hip-hop is a good example of "tool-music"...glitch directly
references digital tools (faceless, untouchable, ephmemeral, highly
technical tools) you can't listen to glitch without knowing the media is
informed by some digital process...Oval is a case in point: CD skipping is
a digital audio artifact...when you hear an Oval piece part of the cultural
signifigence is the fact that we are hearing a systemic failure (failure to
recover lost or missing bits by the CD player) used as an artistic
device...we are let in on the joke (the abstraction) because we own a CD
player and it has most likely skipped when trying to play a CD...the CD
player becomes the tool...another case in point: "e - a novel" by Matt
Beaumont...it was written in the format of intra-office emails and takes
"place" in an ad agency office...everyone reading this has worked with
email understands the cues and pointers of email etiquette...example: the
hidden politics of Cc'ing someone on email...the tool used to construct the
book was email...I can't read this book without knowing the politics of
email...

"being culturally able to read a soundwork fully by being aware of the
process that went into making it"...what I mean by that is that the process
can be technological, political, cultural or all of the above...I know many
people who don't grok the DSP world of magnitude and phase but can and do
know that glitch music references a computer and that the computer is using
"highly technical" (meaning "not easily understood" and hence acts as a
political force which categorizes/separates people into "those who are
computer literate" vs those who aren't computer literate") software to
create the sounds...part of this is because they have not heard these
sounds before and they "sound computer-y"...while glitch is also informed
by the sound of vinyl "runoff" (vinyl sonic artifacts are also heavily used
in hip-hop, and certain electronica...hence click-house and the glitch-dub
music of Pole and Vlad Delay) it remains that glitch is a genre that
cannnot separate the signifier from the signified (tool from content) no
matter how you approach it...every review and article written calls up some
reference to technology even in passing...

a piece of music "works" when the listener's perceptual apparatus conveys
meaningful information during the listening process...the physical process
of making music is directly effected by the way a tool is used (read:
prowess, technique, sophistication of syntax)...there is no getting around
attaching signifigance to technique and even the "lack of technique"
becomes a technique in itself (Sex Pistols, Lou Reed, Daniel Johnston,
Shaggs, etc)...if we want to remove the aspect of technique from music we
can consider the music made to be "generative" in some way...the composer
is removed from the "physical" process of directly making music (dice, I
Ching as two posible means) and the process becomes an abstracted
involvement of generating the algorithm which then generates the
music...emotion and intent are also abstracted in this process and the
categories become somewhat fuzzy...again, the tool (in this case the
algorithm) becomes the message...

also, the "fast-brain" mode of listening started as a coping mechanism but
like all evolutionary catalysts it has become a property of the human
organism...a recent study at Universtiy of Tuebingen shows that fast brains
have a greater capacity for multitasking and a display a higher tolerance
for dissonance and contradiction...sounds like most the people I know...