Re: [microsound] food for thought

[pelagius pelagius <pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Garry Kling <kling007@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> on 03/10/2001 08:20 PM, pelagius pelagius at pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Kim, how does Microsound play a part in this culture of materialism? ...
> > If that is the culture of microsound, ...
>
> Maybe what was meant was that this cultural tendency was being exhibited on
> the list. And I doubt that people uninterested in these gadgets are
> interested in microsound, just as people who don't like classical
> instruments rarely like classical music.

I think I worded my original post poorly.  Reading it again now it looks 
like I was quesioning the relevance of Kim's post, when actually I was 
trying to bring up the point that the materialism he condemns is an integral 
aspect of the microsound genre.  How can you attack this country's 
materialism and the list's tendency toward fan-boy trainspotting when the 
artists themselves have cultivated a culture of boutique labels, limited 
editions and techno fetishism?  The genre's emphasis on graphic design and 
packaging seems to be the ultimate materialist move.  I'm not saying any of 
this to be mean or accusatory.  I make my living as a designer using a 
computer, so I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to reconcile 
these conflicts and concerns in my own life.


> > Does microsound have any
> > substance beneath it's high-tech facade?
>
> It has every possibility to. Microsound is simply an artistic use of the
> technology, which itself promotes it. they are instruments in the very same 
> sense as
> violins or drums, which also represent advances in technology, albeit
> ancient.

I agree.


> But man, the G4's nice shiny finish really
> turns me on...

Well, I own a G4, so I'm as guilty as anyone.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp