RE: [microsound] microsound as pop music

[Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >Pop music is for people who like
> > tradition, who are fearful of risk taking and who are
> conservative, while
> > art appeals to the mavaricks who live on risk and the difficult and the
> > strange.
>
> that is just plain silly. not all art takes risks, not all art gives you
> something new; the beatles were pop, but their music at the time was
> certainly risky and new.

But there were marginal artists at that time (see Galactic Zoo Dossier for
more) that get little credit and were taking far more risks than the Beatles
did.  I'm not sure that you can even suggest they had something to lose,
given their popularity and creative freedom.  True, I can't tell you how
many "fine art" exhibits I've been to that have been completely traditional
in their own right.  I suppose it just depends on whether you're interesting
in current marginal or popular traditions, and the discourse that takes
place around them.  Certainly, people are talking about Britney Spears/Ja
Rule/Jennifer Lopez and what was on Seinfeld/West Wing/Six Feet Under, but
that doesn't mean there aren't other more engaging ways to spend your time.
I don't always feel that a show at a gallery or the MCA, or even an album by
any given IDM artist is going to necessarily be any more engaging or
challenging than a popular source, either.  But I think I'll take a chance
with the margins for an opportunity to be suprised, entertained,
enlightened...for perhaps even a sublime experience.

> Pop music tends to have certain sensibilities/structures that
> appeal to lots
> of people... catchy chorus, repetitive vocal hooks, certain melodic
> structures or chord progressions. but that doesn't mean that everyone who
> listens to it is 'fearful of risk taking', it just means its easy to sing
> along to. and it certainly doesn't make those of us who would
> rather listen
> to something else mavericks and risk takers, it just means we
> have different
> taste.

I think it's useful to think of popular culture in terms of the art of the
past (pre-1700s perhaps?), in terms of art as having a functional societal
role.  The kind of art that operates in galleries and museums or in an
academic setting serves a certain function, often in dialogue with itself or
the underpinnings of the society it serves.  (This, btw, includes much
microsound and IDM, since most of electronic music we speak of on this group
is usually in the same setting, not typically in a "popular" setting.)  I
think that much of what people would consider popular art serves a different
function.  Rather than questioning/discussing/unseating us from our
comfortable position, this work tends to reinforce popular opinion.  That's
why they use polling to test movies.  (The record companies seem to have the
packaging down pretty well to sell a pop musician, too.)  Even a movie like
"Fight Club", which looks on the surface to be a culturally-effacing sort of
work, is in reality a ritual which serves to excise our (U.S.) cultural
demons and allow to trod on back to work and continue to charge our lives
away (Rene Girard concept here).  And I'm not sure if I can qualify one over
the other.  Culture is defined by unified experience, whether it is
manufactured or not, and I would suppose that (unfortunately) pop is a part
of the glue that holds us together.

At least that's true in most offices I've worked in.  Ugh.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Christopher Sorg
   Multimedia Artist/Instructor
 The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
   http://csorg.cjb.net
     csorg@xxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~