RE: [microsound] indigestible food for thought

[Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excerpts from M Mercer...
> this argument doesn't necessarily apply to all microsound artists
> (or those
> who tend to be considered as such), because it is a generalization to say
> that all this music is strictly computer-based. In fact, some of it isn't
> computer-based at all.
..
..
..
> Then again, to criticize this loose group of digitally-based
> sound artists
> for being technologically/media focused (if in fact that is their
> intent at
> all) seems irrelevant.

Keep in mind that this discussion began with some comments that Kim had made
regarding the types of conversations present on this and the IDM newsgroup,
for instance:

>...the US is sheltered
>from how others around the world see us and we need to wake up and start
>questioning the political values we embrace and the values we export
>through the media...
and
>over the last couple of years the microsound list has degenerated into
>little more than a trainspotting fan-boy list that has little to do with
>what the founders intended: to develop philosophical dialog about (post)
>digital/glitch/microsound/etc music...

In my opinion, it isn't that all microsounders are hypocritical or that
there is something inherently wrong with using the computer as a tool to
create sound, or that the list crew are gear-whores or even that we're all
materialist dogs.  It's that it came from the mouth of a list member who
expoused "(post) digital/glitch/microsound/etc music..." for its merits
while denouncing other members for their "trainspotting fan-boy" attitude.
In addition, Kim has made the "tool is the message" argument, that this type
of music is absolutely reliant on technological advance, be it hardware or
software.  If that is the case, then love it or hate it, one could conclude
that trainspotting and gear-whoring are a necessary part of that equation.

What is interesting is how musicians actually get beyond the drooling over
the equipment stage, and get on to making music.  I mean, look at all the
shit that Mouse on Mars hauls to a show, or consider all the different
equipment and software that Mr. Cascone has experienced and experimented
with (Max/MSP, csound, the Lucas ranch, definitely all top of the line,
cutting edge stuff).  Aphex Twin playing around with image->sound software,
Autechre with their Kyma's, Nords and Max/MSP, Plaid with their shiny
titanium Macs.  Perhaps an important question to ask is whether this music
is really going beyond the technology and entering the "music as message"
mode or does it reinforce "tool as message".  Many people on the IDM list
have complained that Aphex Twin is no longer "cutting edge" and that
Autechre's Confield is less listenable.  There haven't been any particular
revolutions in software and hardware for audio in a few years, at least not
as drastic as the mass distribution of PCs available for multimedia
production and the expansion of laptop performance (which has been going on
for well over four years).  I'm not suggesting that the artist had a lesser
role in the development in this type of music, in fact, it was absolutely
necessary for artists to latch on to the technology and expose it for its
value beyond gaming and spreadsheets.  It could be, however, that the
novelty is wearing off and now we're looking beyond how this or that
software sounds, that we are becoming familiar with that aspect of it.

I just don't think its helpful to sing praise and then turn around and be
blithely hypocritical about the situation.  It is probably helpful and
necessary to recognize that this form of art is still an elite practice,
although less so than in the days of John Cage and David Tudor; the tools no
longer exist solely in the realm of academia.  It is safe to say that
microsound and IDM have fed off of the developments in highly academic
settings like Steim and IRCAM, an elite pursuit to be sure.  Do I think that
focusing on gear and being a fan-boy is annoying and gossipy?  Of course.
Do I believe that it is a part of the development of this sort of music?
Yes.  If the misinformation and flaming aren't taken too far, then the
process is educational.  If no one asked about what Kyma was, what's
Max/MSP, how did they do that vocoding thing, etc, etc, no one would branch
out and experiment with those things and take them to the next level,
(perhaps poetry, metaphor?) which is what I'm assuming some of the musicians
out there are now doing.  I guess it's okay to take the low art into the
high art world, like writing about glitch in an MIT press publication, but
we wouldn't want the heathens arguing about techniques used by the avant
garde.

What was Kim complaining about anyhow?
___________________________
Christopher Sorg
Multimedia Artist/Instructor
http://www.enteract.com/~csorg
csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx