RE: [microsound] Money/Mouth

[Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >
> >Or, perhaps, could someone make an entirely separate email list
> devoted to
> >this topic, so that we don't have to go through it here again.
> >
> >Cheers!
> >-=Trace
>
> yeah, or perhaps we could all go see mulholland drive, and then get over
> the fact that we're all idiots for believing that sound comes from one
> place or another anyway.

So skip it.  Or try the delete button, or a moderated list if you need to.
But it's completely on-topic, even if you're *yawn* too bored or enlightened
to contribute to the thread.  Or you could contribute another interesting
thread rather than bitching about a topic that many of us find worth
discussing.  Of course, if you weren't interested in revisiting this
discussion, then you wouldn't have seen my original post, which was
attempting to bring some other ideas into the mix.

My original point was that in the discussions that have come before, I
haven't seen anyone really bring up the topic of Pythagoras and I wanted to
hear what others had to add to the notion of laptop as acousmatic
performance.  I was also interested in hearing what people had to say about
the position of laptop performer as rock star, whether it's a hold over from
modernist notions (or as was pointed out, earlier Romantic notion) of the
individual as auteur.  The argument about the laptop as instrument, laptop
player as performer is somewhat beside the point.  Why is this the mode
being chosen in the first place, when there are other models out there
(radio, academic "performances", etc)?  Center stage does seem somewhat
inappropriate for someone "appearing" to do their taxes.  And in many
instances, the performer adds *nothing* to the performance.  Why not just
throw in a CD?  I'd still go hear it if the venue had an excellent sound
system.

> So do people go to experience music, entertainment, or both?   Isn't it up
to the
> individual? How do they perceive what they are experiencing?    Does it
make a
> difference now that you look back at the Milli Vanilli set and know that
> they were lip syncing?  If so why?  What has changed after the fact?
>
> aLEKs

Well, that's a good question, part of what I was driving at.  Are people
going to listen to music?  Because if so, then the stage show isn't
necessary.  I don't get all wet when I go see a symphony orchestra because I
get to watch the first violins stroke it in the front row.  I go for the
performance and the acoustics of the space.  There is no reason to plague
the electronic listening audience with Very Bad Visuals (tm) or a
pseudo-rock show unless there is something wrong with the sound itself.
Unless it's some sort of author-authenticity that we require from our
performers, which is so difficult to wrangle from the laptop performer.
Perhaps the laptop performer is lacking the sign-signifier  connection that
the coronet player has.  Someone suggested, quite ridiculously, how do you
know that someone is playing into their coronet?  I think the sign-signifier
connections are quite clear.  A speaker sounds different than a live
instrument.  Most jazz performances in smaller venues don't even need
amplification.  Acoustic.  The air moves around the instrument, around the
performers mouth, through the spit valve.  You can hear this.  But the
laptop is already the Pythagorean screen, and people are struggling with the
problem.

Oh, and I don't *need* Milli Vanilli at all if all they're going to do is
lip sync.  That would be acousmatic, just go to a concert and listen to
their CD.  But that didn't happen.  I suspect it's because images sell
strongly, think of how many mediocre songs can really rise from the
associated visuals (all the way back to, at least, The Monkees).  And
believe me, you can often tell when singers fake it.  They aren't holding
the mic in the correct position, they're breathing wrong and their mouths
aren't open wide enough.  It is another of those Very Bad Visuals (tm).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying let's do away with one or the other, I'm
just curious as to why there is so much prevalence of the one OVER the
other.  What's wrong with the acousmatic notion in pop performance?  Is the
pop music too pop?  Too boring for sitting and listening?  Are the venues
sound-systems substandard?  Why the anti-acousmatic sentiment and the pop
acceptance for Milli Vanilli entertainment?

> And does it really matter that the Monkees didn't perform live most of the
time?  They
> knew how to play their instruments and wrote most of their material.
(aLEKs)

Neil Diamond wrote many of their songs, and their biggest hits.  And I
believe most of them learned to play their instruments because they had to
go on tour.  Much after they (and the songs) were popular.

> i feel it is unfair to say that an audience member cannot relate to or
appreciate a
> laptop set as they would a traditional show.  First of all they aren't
experienced in
> the same way as you pointed out.  Also audience members know what to
expect from each,
> and appreciate both respectively.

I never made any assumptions about what an audience member could or couldn't
do.  Actually, I was pointing out that the laptop artist is representing
him- or herself in certain ways that *create* expectation, either as rock
star or auteur, rather than "here is the audio".  It's just ego.  Wasn't the
scandal of Milli Vanilli is that they did *not* present themselves
authentically?  Misrepresentation?

Wouldn't it be quite the scandal if Kim Cascone said that a computer had
been writing his music all these years? (tongue firmly in cheek)

Enough for now.
__________________________________________
Christopher Sorg
Multimedia Artist and Instructor
The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
http://csorg.cjb.net
csorg@xxxxxxxxx
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release