Re: [microsound] to kim and curtis roads!

[eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>and kim, although i respect your work concerning these issues, I find it
>altogether silly and somewhat pretentious to for you to think that you
>are "carrying the torch" for gggllitch... that your rhetoric will, at
>the end of the day, prove to be a shining and victorious moment for
>glitch.  seems like a modernist stance to me... and missing the point
>entirely.

Just this morning I came across an interesting take on what I think Kim is
getting at. In the current issue of Sound Collector, Kurt Ralske has the
following to say about the learning curve of getting into video
composition:

"Even though I'm new to video, I am able to get a lot of personal
expression out of it because I have these materials that I've been working
with for a long time. When you work with computers now, what you do with
the data is independent of the kind of data you use. Especially if you
work with MAX or NATO, it's media-independent: data is just data. The only
thing that's important is the way you handle it."

Sure sure, the sound result is important to the listener, but this points
to an attitude that perhaps there's some axis behavior between composing
or songcraft and tool-music, where the style of the composer winds up
being an archaeology of tools used (with their algorithmic signatures,
natch).

>Mr. marcel Duchamp (r.mutt) graced us with his wit by displaying a
>urinal as a work of art in a gallery... that was, funny enough, a
>watershed moment.  the mundane subverting it's own context 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think it's crucial to note that
the mundane context was subverted by an *artist* manipulating the urinal
with a signature, not just from the urinal existing on its own.

-eric

onnow: Like...Future 3 (April)