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

RE: [microsound] Re: laptop hell



Regarding Bill Ashline's comments at bottom:

Given people on the list are not all versed in literary theory I thought
it'd be useful to debate this further.  Yes, all theory is not bad, but
being dogmatic about particular theories can be though... I do have an
related observation to make about Maryanne Amacher's music at the end,
but first my explanatory response:


[Post-Modern Thought]
It is the central and essential tenet of post-modernism that "all the
world is text". This essential idea to that school of thought was very
well summarized by Bill in his first paragraph.  I only point this out
since it seems that there is a debate questioning if the worldview of
post-modern theory is a requirement for discussion on this list and for
making the sort of music discussed here.  Given that not all on this
list come from a comparative literature or cultural studies background
in some way, it seems worth pointing this out in more explicit form.  I
do this in the spirit of pluralism, and healthy debate, not to start
flame wars; this list is pretty sincere about discussion so I'll do my
best to share my sincerity about music and theory/thought.

I also think it would be helpful to share how post-modern theories are
currently thought to be:
- they are very useful critiques of corporate-capitalist cultures
- they are useful and updated definitions of what it means to be
literate about all we experience in culture, not just "literate" in
terms of reading and writing visual phonetic speech, aka text.
- they are over-exaggerated subjectivisms that obscure progress made in
the practice of the scientific method to study the nature of homo
sapiens (ourselves).
- they are nihilistic in their exaggerated-relativistic form via their
predominantly descriptive (non-pro-active) worldview, as overly
subjective absolute meta-description is just an esoteric form of
consumption.


[Post-Modern jargon "Text"]
To clarify, um yes, I meant "text" in the semiotic sense, not 'text' as
in literally visualized phonetic speech, but in the same sense Bill was
apologetically stating. Maybe 'script' is a better word as it implies
the passive following or overlaying of something, of obscuring stuff in
a generally rigid way or at best theoretically playful enlightening way.


[Objective Knowledge]
Post-Modern's view that "all the world is text" generally has made the
case that objective knowledge or experience is impossible or
un-knowable. This critique has both helped the evolution of the
scientific method and hurt it, depending on the ideological dogmatism of
the claim.

Of course, yes, indeed, not to worry, don't freak out, it is clear that
(personal, cultural, political) subjectivity is ever present. But can we
say that objective knowledge does exist or is possible in limited terms
and that theory or "scripts" about it keep evolving along with the
experience of those attempting to understand it?

For example: evolution is fact and is an objective observation of
science, but natural selection and creationism are some of the "texts"
or "scripts" created to explain what has been observed. Some scripts
overlaid are continually updated based on further objective research,
resulting currently in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while
others still bang the same ignorant drum loudly.

Another example: up until the past century and the work of G.H. Mead,
many have assumed since the Enlightenment (without truly attempting to
find out) that human nature is individualistic, but actual objective
research as opposed to theory has proven that the human animal is in
fact social by nature and that the individuality is emergent.


[Misc. Comments]
Bill's references about the value offered in misreading are excellent,
as they point to ways of dealing with and understanding communication
and interpretation across cultures, between giving and receiving.

Anti-intellectualism is most noted by non-pluralism, and ideological
dogmatism; exhibited in many a post-modern "fundamentalist".  It seems
to be observable fact that any group that bases their views on "scripts"
or "master-texts" tend to have fundamentalist elements, religious groups
or otherwise, Marxist, Capitalist, Fascist, Post-Moderns, etc.

Speaking of Aglo-American, yes, there are other traditions or schools of
thought, that have offered other scripts or offer ways to be conscious
and work to avoid the traps of being "scripted" and looking at the world
predominantly as "text".  I am speaking of the American pragmatic
tradition in philosophy, sociology, and anthropology that has led to
major advances in the knowledge and study of human experience via the
work of: C.S. Pierce, William James, John Dewey, G.H. Mead, and Franz
Boas.


[Linguistics]
Post-Modern theory in part is heavily rooted in Linguistic theory. C.S.
Pierce is in fact one of the founders of modern linguistics that has
since branched out and mixed with the schools of thought in various
parts of the world. Its very insightful to appreciate how the study of
language, verbal orality, has evolved to its discussion now in relation
to music and sound in general.   


[Why I'm On This List, Why This Email]
I've been a microsound reader for several months, but after experiencing
and being profoundly affected by Maryanne Amacher's multichannel sound
piece "Excerpts: Neurophonic Exercises" at the Whitney Biennial last
month I decided to share in the recent debates about theory and music.

I've not read up on Amacher's theory, but I did *experience* and gather
that she has spent much time focusing on objective study of how human
hearing works. Our bodies are very real, not "texts", we are not
mind/body dualisms.  Maryanne Amacher's "ear dance" or "third ear music"
work speaks to we human animals so clearly and beautifully. IMHO it was
the most sublime "piece" by far at this year's Biennial.

Most people never spend time to listen and will miss or have already
missed out, (or left in the middle of it because they found the loudness
too difficult) if you get a chance, go, experience it directly. The
sheer physicality, loudness, and body-ear-knowing structure of it just
may help to remove any "text" you may grip onto so tightly, at least for
12 minutes.


Sincerely, a fellow human brother,
Dan Latorre

(p.s. - if any one could recommend online or printed info about Maryanne
Amacher I'd greatly appreciate it.)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Ashline [mailto:bashline@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:52 PM
> To: microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [microsound] Re: laptop hell
> 
> 
> >From: "dan latorre" <dan@xxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: RE: [microsound] laptop hell
> >
> >perhaps instead of focusing on the devices used, discussion 
> should also
> >be about the power of vanity and fame and celebrity within 
> the heavily
> >mediated consumer-corporate-culture of the present moment? 
> and should we
> >examine and observe it empirically or via a text (Bible 
> text?, Derrida
> >text?, Deleuze text?) Let's drop the texts, and observe and share
> >findings...
> 
> Well, observing something "empirically" is itself a "text," 
> every bit of one 
> as any text by Deleuze.  So is the text that we shouldn't 
> read the empirical 
> world according to any "graphic" texts, like a Deleuze or 
> Kant, or Kafka for 
> example.  Any time you listen to music like Alto Nova and 
> notice a dub 
> influence, you're reading a text.  The CD has the status of 
> textuality that 
> belongs to any book, whether it calls itself a text or not.  
> The observer's 
> observation is always conditioned by the various texts of 
> life, whether they 
> be history, culture, familial background, etc., and these 
> things can be 
> "read" as biographers often do.
> 
> It's interesting to see some of the "theory fatigue" around 
> these parts from 
> time to time (not necessarily with the comment above).  Some 
> people don't 
> bother reading any and become defensive.  ("I have a right to 
> my opinions 
> about theory whether I've read any or not"--the anti-intellectual 
> remark--not worth taking seriously, which is why it 
> exemplifies its own 
> resentment publicly).  Or the scolding about the use of theory by the 
> smarter audience--mirroring in a sense some of the criticisms 
> of Derrida's 
> reception in the Anglo-American world ("those fuckers didn't 
> get their 
> Derrida right goddamn it")--failing to recognize that there 
> are such things 
> as productive "misreadings" something Derrida himself was 
> noted for and 
> approved (the disapprobation toward certain American 
> Derrideans by certain 
> Derrridean scholars was not shared by Derrida himself, who 
> was in fact 
> encouraged by certain of these creative "misreadings.")
> 
> A better approach:  if you're not on the theory "bandwagon," 
> feel free to 
> get off without uttering too many sounds.  If it doesn't 
> apply to you, why 
> not ignore it without comment.  If you're on the theory page 
> but get uptight 
> about the readings, why not specify when theory is simply 
> being used to 
> "look cool" rather than productively moving in more 
> interesting directions.  
> Is the use of theory with regard to music always a "bad 
> thing?"  Blanket 
> assessments are uninteresting, though they do keep one warm.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>