Re: [microsound] a new primitivism?

[Bill Jarboe <billjarboe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 10/05/01 5:20 PM, w_a_s_t_e_@xxxxxxxx at w_a_s_t_e_@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> My point, or rather question, here is:
> Isn´t the thought of music as
> something physical something
> which has guided the making, and
> experiencing of music since
> pythagoras? Why are we all then
> acting as if this is something
> completely alien to the history of
> music? As if the purity of tones (to
> speak with Immanuel Kant) were
> something neglected or forgotten.
> One may only think of rock music,
> which also builds itself on a similar
> notion notion of physicality.
> 
 I think the difference is that recently the tools for very precise
construction and manipulations of sound are generally available. This also
means that listeners  have access to something very close to what the
composer intended. 

> At least for myself, I have decided to
> consider this as a new primitivism.

 I'm always surprised when music actually 'works'. By that I mean it has its
own way of functioning , different from the other art forms. Since music can
encompass elements of graphic design, literature , drama etc .. it's easy(
for me, anyway) to forget that a composition can function outside of a title
, a concept , a nice arrangement.
 

   I find it  exciting to work with just sound, especially when other people
respond to the same things I found inspiring.



> Though, it should be noted that
> primitive need not be bad. But are we
> really aware of this? What happened
> to the physico-social meshwork?

I'd like to think some meshwork still exists, perhaps a more specific kind
of meshwork. ' would be great to see a social scene where one didn't need to
be exploitative , overbearing, clobber people or immediately try to sell
them something. 

 I guess what I mean by all of that is: If you know you're 'on it' sonically
, its terribly important to perform. It empowers us to work more effectively
the next day, think clearer thoughts . Plus: there's the matter of having
people undertand what you're about because you communicated something- or
just having a conversation over the din( probably worth the effort).
> Are 
> we all just joining the post-adornian
> thought of Jaques Attali: that noise is
> no longer arranged according to our
> experience of music, but instead our
> experience of music arranged
> according to noise.
 
 Some noises have more meaning to me than others.I think theres a way one
can work with what has meaning and what doesn't to good effect.



                                 Bill