re: [microsound] Further (rambling) thoughts on Mutek, 2nd night (30/05)

[tobias v <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Guillame,

Thanks for your reply. However, I will spare you
the intensity and the time it would take to piece
through your email word by word. When I do undertake
such an operation, it is usually in the headspace of
deconstruction, and I do not think we wish to go there.
Perhaps in conversation -- see my other email.

As for your comments, you need to step back and see the
paradigm you are working within. This is constructed
through the entire contextual flow of your criticism,
and does not manifest itself as a clear and direct
meaning at any one point (it would be safe to say, indeed,
that such a manifestation never reveals its presence at
any one point in absolute purity; although it is, as you
reveal in your cut-and-paste aesthetic, the assumption
of rhetoric). Of course, such a step back is an
impossibility, which is why philosophy-- which is criticism--
requires the Other to reconstruct and reinterpret your
delimitations. This is what I am doing, and have done.
Consider it.

I look forwards to meeting you, if you so desire.

best,

tobias v


> On 02/06/02 19:58, tobias v said in living color:
> 
>> -- the piece I quoted was the Handel, which was oddly enough the
>> piece you could not remember. I do find it fascinating. No death
>> threats, just interpretative curiousity. I question your review
>> as you apply specific classical paradigms to this music,
> 
> Are you still talking about the Handel piece or the globality of the night?
> 
> About the Handel (last) piece, I said:
> 
> "I remember thinking that the tones and the way in which
> they were linked (actually, they weren't and that's the problem -- it was
> more an indifferent series) seemed "careless". I also felt it suffered from
> a lack of direction, as with the choral piece before."
> 
> Doesn't seem much like classical paradigms to me. The analysis is a bit
> weak, though, as I did not remember much of the piece, as we both know... Or
> perhaps I'm not grasping your point correctly...
> 
>> specifically
>> loop-based music,
> 
> Regarding loop-based music, I said:
> 
> "Well, it's not that I refuse the approach per se, but I often find myself
> thinking that the technique was used out of laziness, lack of ideas or
> inadequate mastery of the instruments used. It fills the void of silence and
> keeps people happy while requiring only a small expense of effort."
> 
> Again, it doesn't seem to me that this is applying classical paradigms to
> another form. But maybe I'm missing something.
> 
>> and simply pass judgements based upon a codified
>> set of rules which are extremely genre-specific. Not to mention that you are
>> doing exactly what I criticise as a euro-centric high art stance in the
>> missive I sent the list as mutek 3/4...
> 
> I don't want to bother you but maybe if you quoted a specific passage of my
> original message and commented directly on it, I'd understand more clearly
> what you mean.
> 
>> However, I do appreciate
>> the detail and humour you add to your excellent description of the music
>> involved, but deeply feel that you *will* never appreciate loop-based
>> music if you continue to paint yourself into the box--which is conveniantly
>> hoisted upon a pedestal--you have placed yourself into.
> 
> I like a *lot* of loop-based music. :)
> 
> I do listen to a lot of electronic music, so it's pretty inevitable. :)
> I also like several works pertaining to early instrumental minimalism, which
> is pretty loop-heavy.
> 
>> Overall I agree. Janek Schaefer was incredible. But the others perhaps
>> need different coda to appreciate their value. I can see the
>> differentiations you are making, but feel that they need to be rotated at
>> degrees to speculate upon their respective inertias and speeds. See what I
>> mean?
>> 
>> - t
>> 
>> p.s. Apologies for my recent chatter to this list --
>> & it was wonderful meeting many of you @ Mutek.
>> One more night ...
> 
> Thanks for your additional words. I think we're slowly but surely tuning
> more clearly on each other's minds.
> 
> BTW, this message was only sent to me. I'm saying that because it seems that
> you wanted to direct it to the list too...
> 
> g.


tobias c. van Veen -----------
http://www.shrumtribe.com
http://www.targetcircuitry.com
------------- tobias@xxxxxxxxx
---McGill Communications------



<-----journalisms------------>
[Montreal Correspondent]
Capital Magazine
http://www.capitalmag.com
Butter Magazine
http://www.mmmbutter.com
-----------------------------
[Panarticon Columnist]
Discorder Magazine
http://www.citr.ca
-----------------------------
[Resident Critic]
www.electronicmusicreviews.com
http://www.incursion.org
-----------------------------


------ End of Forwarded Message