RE: [microsound] digital sound / digital aesthetics.

["ph!L @ c e n t i b e l" <hellomynameisphil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ph!L:
>..."analog aesthetic" is so meaningless. (What would that
be? Tape hiss?). <
ian:
"good point- i meant to ask what specific characteristics would define a
digital aesthetic as opposed to a general technological one."
 
ph!L responds:
Yes, I think you did do that very well. I didn't mean that *your*
definition was meaningless, but just that "digital aesthetic" wouldn't
mean anything unless it set itself off against something else. Up till
now, most people haven't really used that term, and it only means
anything now because the usual terminology (which is very general, like
"the aesthetics of electronic music" or "the aesthetics of computer
music") is perceived to be inadequate. 
ph!L (me):
>But a digital aesthetic could also be critical of digital technology. I
>can't think of examples offhand, but it would be possible to create a
work digitally that was critical of the digital medium and/or the ways
in which it transforms our experience of the world. <
ian:
"i think this is what is usually meant by a "digital aesthetic",
microsound 
works, glitch, etc. i think this is a bit too specific, as digital 
technology offers other possibilities that aren't related to
deconstruction 
(e.g extremely precise control over musical parameters, and other 
possibilities we have yet to discover)."
 
ph!L responds:
I wasn't so much disagreeing with your initial definition as trying to
offer another possibility. I agree that there needs to be more openness
in the term, and so I accept your definition, but also add that it can
mean other things too. I suggested the deconstructive approach because
it's what I'm so interested in.
ph!L:
>I would prefer to believe that AE changed the label to be more
inclusive. <
ian:
"AE changed the category name as part of a massive redefinition of the
sonics 
category- i think they felt there was too heavy an emphasis on 
"electroacoustic" music (if i recall correctly, i think they published a
polemic about "academic music" at the time they changed the name, but i 
don't have the details), and they wanted more street-level music,
glitchy 
beats, experimental electronics, music more distant from classical
theory, 
more blectum, matmos and gunter than parmegiani, smalley and wishart. 
compare the awards lists pre and post name change and you'll see it
signals 
a change in aesthetics; the electroacoustic/acousmatic/computer music 
composers who used to dominate the list now are lucky to get a mention.
so 
AE isn't more or less inclusive than before, they're just "including" an
entirely different set of music. and that's fine with me,
electroacoustic 
composers (and i am one) have other prizes to fight over if they care
about 
such things (bourges, noroit, musica nova, etc)."
ph!L:
Sounds like you are more knowledgeable about the specific politics of
the situation than I am, so I will defer to your judgment. And it seems
like a good thing that they have shifted their focus, as what you say is
true about the proliferation of awards for traditional "electroacoustic"
and "computer" music composers.
 
_---___---_-_------_-_-_-__---_-____-_--_--__
ph!L (t:h:o:m:s:o:n)
personal website: http://www3.telus.net/thisisphil/
curator of c e n t i b e l : http://centibel.vze.com
releases: scan on s'agita recordings(italy)
speaker/interlocutor on xenophony media (canada)
__---___--_--_-__--_-_-____-_-_--__---_---_--_

_______________________________________________________________
Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
http://www.mail2world.com