Re: [microsound] Re: grabbing people by the balls (dumbtype et al)

[M Mercer <vletrmx@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

first, hypothetically speaking (since i'm not a promoter or soundman) i 
would say that if an artist has agreed to not go above a certain volume 
level etc, i would be pretty irritated if i was putting on a show and said 
artist completely ignored the agreement (in effect lying) and blew my entire 
PA. needless to say I'd assume that an artist with such a reputation would 
find it increasingly more difficult to get shows booked...?

however, in the case of dumbtype, they have a very specific guidelines 
document that outlines all aspects of the performance and what they require 
to perform, so i doubt they are surprising anyone who's organized the show, 
although some of the audience members apparently were taken aback by the 
sound (which again, was not that loud in my opinion).

as an aside, perhaps we can pose the question: how much volume is too much? 
after all, what sort of "statement" is an artist making by causing hearing 
loss? is this counterproductive or the idea of noise as "anti-music" taken 
to extremes? sure, i suppose this could be posed to any rock band (atari 
teenage riot was perhaps the loudest thing i've ever experienced, i kicked 
myself for forgetting the earplugs) as well, but in the case of noise or a 
more art-gallery based performance, it seems to take on an added level of 
relevance. if half your audience feels it necessary to wear earplugs to your 
shows, why bother with such volume if people are going to go out of their 
way to "mute" it (as they obviously don't care for the high levels)?

lastly, the post below states that sound should be created and/or perceived 
without meaning. I would have to disagree with this sentiment on some 
levels...although in a technical sense, of course you are right, sound is a 
series of frequencies, etc, it's all physics, yes, but it's the same mindset 
that visual art is inherently meaningless and should be viewed only as form. 
in theory this can be really interesting, but it seems so much a means to an 
end that the perpetual pursuit of this meaninglessness can eventually become 
in itself meaningless... Because there is a "concept" behind it does not 
necessarily mean that the concept was developed after the fact to justify 
the formal aspects, because in many instances it's intrinsic to what's been 
created. (Such is the case with Dumbtype, wherein every aspect appears based 
around intently communicating an idea or concept.) Absolutism is, in my 
opinion, overrated, and it strikes me as naive and/or myopic to assume that 
art of any kind can and will only mean one thing (or nothing) to all people.

"If you have a message or statement words are alot more efficient."
But are there not things that cannot be completely put into words? Do words 
alone deliver the same sort of experience derived from sound or visuals or 
dance? Of course not.

I'm going to back up a few steps though and clarify that I don't have a 
problem with sound as sound (without concept) because quite often it's more 
than successful without a lofty idea or motive other than form for form's 
sake... And many artists who preach a "big idea" can as you said come off as 
"masturbatory," so it runs the gamut I suppose. I realize these are just 
your opinions and that you obviously have a concise idea of what sound means 
to you... I'm just trying to make a few points in another direction and shed 
some light on the fact that sound (like most things) means different things 
to different people....


anyone who actually read this whole post gets a gold star :-)






> From: "---------------- ---------------" <blove666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [microsound] Re: grabbing people by the balls (dumbtype et al)