Re: [microsound] Money/Mouth

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 15 May 2002 11:54:49 -0700
"pelagius pelagius" <pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 
> >From: Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Hence, the only way to perform that music was through a recording.  ...So I 
> >don't think that the academic music has "adjusted" to performances with 
> >tape/CD.  It came as a necessity.  And it still is a necessity.
> 
> But why is the "performance" of recorded music neccessary at all?  If 
> musical performance and the creation of a recording are two distinct 
> artforms (like theater and film) why do artists who create recorded music 
> feel the need to perform?  Is it merely an economic or promotional decision? 
>   Or does the need to perform come from the need for people to assemble in 
> social situations like watching movies in a "theatrical" setting?  Will the 
> musical equivalent of the movie theater ever become widely accepted without 
> a funcional aspect (music to dance to, music as social wallpaper, etc.)  
> Perhaps as Christopher was discussing above radio (including web radio) 
> performs this function within the artform of recorded music and 
> "performance" of recordings in a physical space is unnecessary.
> 

Well, this is a very subjective opinion but I think that an 'acousmatic' performance is an 'experience' in itself.  I would not go to an electroacoustic music concert of tape/CD music with only 2 speakers placed in front of me.  Also, diffusion of tape music is an art in itself and some people are so good at it that it's worth being part of such an event.  A CD player, radio or whatever does not compare.  One could suppose that the dolby surround could be an alernative (especially if music was done _specifically_ for 5.1 or 7.1).  Some composers have been experimenting with 4 and 8 track pieces (or more?) but back then those things were causing a lot of technical hassle.  So sourround will make some people stay home instead of going to a Rien à Voir or the show at the BEAST.  Not me, though.

> 
> >Romantic assumption, rather.  The romantic period has created the cult of 
> >the virtuoso composer/player, the star, the center of attention.
> 
> Hmm, this is what I was thinking when I asked a couple of weeks ago about 
> the insistence that the cult of the artist is a modernist phenomenon.  Of 
> course nobody agreed with me then!  Once again, I feel that there is an 
> implied political value judgement when someone talks about "the modernist 
> cult of the virtuoso, etc." but I'm not clear on what that is.  I don't know 
> enough about postmodernism but I feel like I'm missing out on something 
> here.

I don't mean to criticise anybody, but I can see that today's culture is very present/future oriented.  I have been living in north america for the past several years and I notice that for most people 'history' means the civil war, Vietnam, Holocaust, french-english conflict in Canada, and such.  Nobody gives much attention to the origin and the development of various issues throughout the centuries.  Hell, for some north americans the world starts at around 1600s.  But we have discussed already the (non)usefulness of the knowledge about the past here and I don't want to be the first to start it all over again.

Now, for the past 8 years or so (more?) everybody is freaking out with the 'postmodern' and all that and they analyze everything from the postmodern perspective.  And sometimes, I believe, that perspective blurs a bit the history...  But I'm not an expert in that area so don't flame me.  It's just an "outsider's" point of view.  

> >From: Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >In some ways, there really isn't a way for the laptop to *not* be
> >acousmatic. There is no way to directly indicate a source for the
> >sound; the source *IS* the laptop, but it isn't at the same time.
> 
> Maybe that tension between the laptop being and not being the source of 
> sound highlights the inadequacy of the concept of the acousmatic.

No, I think it shows a total lack of interest in acousmatics in today's audience (and composers/performers as well).  Not that there's something wrong with that; the culture evolves, humans evolve and we come up with different ways of enjoying life and other little pleasures.

But what Christopher is pointing out is rather interesting.  I have actually seen some performances that utilised the computer as an _instrument_ and not simply as a playback device.  Although some sampling was involved (especially live sampling is fun!) the rest of the action was in the analysis and transformation/deformation/resynthesis of live instruments/voice/whathaveyou.  I've seen it mostly in the academic setting and done by academics.  It's a shame people don't take it to the street.  But then again, it is not the kind of music/performance that a general dance/bar public would be into.

I would like to see more people doing that kind of thing.
-- 
../MiS

Michal Seta		http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/mis
CreaZone		http://www.creazone.com
No One Receiving	http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/nor

upcoming release:
NOR - "The Release of the Wandering-Eyed Girl"
	http://www.grainofsound.com