RE: [microsound] fetishization

[gently reclining avocado <transmit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'll have to read Attali.  It sounds like the idea is straight out of Walter
> Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".  Apply
> to any art form at will :)


it also calls to mind another frankfurt schooler, theodore adorno (and max 
horkheimer, i suppose) and his whole "culture industry" idea - in fact, 
attali's idea (the way you put it, at least) sounds almost identical on a 
surface level.  i think this is elitist, and tries to give privilege to 
"authentic" and "important" art, which any postmodernist will cut you down 
for even dreaming of, as you ignore the potential/place for irony and 
subtlety, different modes of reception, self-effacing jokes, and embedded 
social messages in whatever the popular/low art you criticise is.

basically, following adorno, you position the "consuming public" (assuming 
you think you are not one of them - pierre bourdieu's theories of 
distinction give credence to the idea that your taste, while not/anti- 
mainstream, is controlled by the mainstream and your need to be 
distinguished from it) as fools and blind consumers.  which on a mass level 
it's easy to generalise "them" as, but the generalised mass (as any decent 
post-marxist should tell you) is a fictional construct in itself, and one 
which panders to an ideological end.

i think i mostly agree, though, with all the elitist wank i'm hearing about 
the pop music industry from people/lists like all of you.  just thought i'd 
add some other critical perspectives on the legitimacy of these supposedly 
different spheres of the so-called industry.  my opinion is that popular 
culture is a horror, but i don't think that's a critical view that i'm 
going to be pushing on people and arguing over.

as for regurgitated chord progressions and so on, you can say that music is 
central to the socio/cultural life of any self-aware human being, or you 
can say it can mean everything and nothing depending on which person.  i 
subscribe to the latter.  music and art are relative luxuries, and in 
modern western society arise from quarters which are affluent enough to 
concentrate sufficient time and energy on music/art rather than 
concentrating on labour, work, the accumulation of capital.  of course, 
this doesn't apply to some people, such as those who have worked out a way 
to de-prioritise money without starving, or who have managed to make money 
from music.

anyway, was going to say more, but i'll shut up and go back to bed.

jon.




dust vs stars
http://home.pacific.net.au/~transmit