Re: microsound Digest 31 Jan 2002 03:26:52 -0000 Issue 475

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

At 03:26 2002-01-31 +0000, you wrote:
> yes, i suppose it's difficult to imagine a chemist embarking upon an=20
> experimental process without focussed regard for the result.  then again,=20
> we are talking about experimental music here, not experimental science, and=
> =20
> they are (for the most part) very different lines of thinking.  while i can=
> =20
> appreciate conceptual "art music" (if i'm in the mood, anyway), i am=20
> infinitely more interested in aesthetic experiments.  besides, how many=20
> completely pathetic/clich=E9d "art" concepts have you seen being thrown=
>  about=20
> music lately?  so many projects would be infinitely more credible without=20
> the need-to-be-simultaneously-intellectual egocentrism.

in science there is 1 motive to experimentation:

1) find something better

in art one cannot talk of "better" (it's all subjective) so there are 
really 2 different motives to experimentation:

1) find something new
2) find something that works

motive 1) is what you illustrate, finding anything new for the sake of it 
being new.  motive 2) is basically about finding the G-spot of your 
audience & sticking to it forever, which is not something which is usually 
called "experimental", but as it is concerned with results, it does 
resemble scientific experimentation (perhaps that's why this list is so 
obsessed with madonna & britney spears?  as they utterly concerned with 
results to a point where you can call it experimental?).  anyway, the 
process of interesting experimental art usually involves a path between 1) 
& 2).

then again, this argument involves large brush strokes, so it might not 
really mean anything.  (that would be news.)

~ david

--Boundary_(ID_/pMVlI9XveqSRsQtXFFQWw)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] traditional experimental music?"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit