[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] Re: grabbing people with a statement



On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 06:55 AM, ---------------- --------------- wrote:

I have no gripes with any matters of dis-respect towards audiences or venues due to the fact they do or should know what they are getting themselves into.

My concern is with what Christopher Sorg started to mention. I understand that most of the individuals involved in "contemporary"(i do not use the word experimental because it hardly applies) music attach some kind of "statement", "message", or "meaning" to their work. This idea puzzles me. Sound has no meaning. It just is. We may want to dress it up in any infinite possibilties but that doesnt make it so. Many artists present their work with so much talk that I wonder what would happen if the talk wasnt there. Would the work hold itself up? Sometimes I feel there is a definite amount of over intellectualization in the arts fields. It is almost masturbatory. If you have a message or statement words are alot more efficient. Is it possible to appreciate sounds for what they are, not as some vessel for my self-expression or ideas?

Language is musical. And thank you for that statement about sound I suppose I 'll be thinking about it when I'm listening to only-themselves sounds. Context, interpretation, interpenetration. Law of the observer. It's possible to fetishize a void. Both an artist and a monk?


In a contractual, legalistic, consumer sense, of course, you are right when it comes to matters of respect.


-km