Re: [microsound] Re: feild music / not field recordings vs. Godzilla

["j.frede" <jfrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i would like to simplify my position on this subject,,,, if it sounds good
to me i listen to it.

j.frede

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doctrine Insectvas" <doctsect@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [microsound] Re: feild music / not field recordings vs.
Godzilla


> funny cause now we're all getting to that old scenerio "intention vs.
> execution of intent". -or more simply put- The IDEA of MUSIC as opposed to
> just music (what ever that is...??).
>
> I'm not sure if the english vernacular can realy break down the theory of
> "pleasure" without some sort of marketing behind it to draw a familiarity
> from. And that kinda stinks if you think about it.. Cause essentialy
that's
> usualy what most field recordings & alot of MAX plug-in users currently
rely
> on to harvest a listener.  A direction. Even if it's a white inlay card
with
> a 1pt dot on it, the presentation is saying something to the invisible
> audience.
>
> Now, whether that audience is equiped to render a responce to something
that
> non-descript is not up to me but I say. But if I did say somthing, it
would
> be, "the more one has to describe for the audience what they are hearing,
> the least necessary that work becomes, and the least able that piece will
be
> to find the concept of universiality." I mean isn't a recording-field
> similar to just a walk around your nearest lake or standing up against a
> wall in your closet simply listening?????....are brains can record yes/no?
>
> (..about to watch those who use E-PRIME just cring at me...)
> Univeriality is something that really "ISN'T" when it comes to things
artsy
> or even arts-n-craftsy. Instinctualy I'm not sure if any creature holds a
> similar need for sound design "AS" a design without it relying on the
> concept of "music". I mean if you think about it, whether by accumulated
> chance mechanisms via a sound patch and calculated filters -or- by the
> ramdom(teehee) accurance of a MAX plug-in some basic explanation from the
> artist tends to always follow. Otherwise I think labels like LINE & trente
> oiseaux prolly wouldn't be so respected and adheared to. Not to say that
the
> world of non-field-field recordings and/or sound-art lacks without these
> definitions from the artists (via their liner notes) but maybe the liner
> notes are more like taking on the persona of a conductor. Even still, at
any
> symphonic concert most people watch the conductor more then they'll pay
> close attension to the brass sections's anguished faces as they blow their
> horns.
>
> To create a form a music without a focus point of direction or trijectory
is
> nothing short of just recordable inactivity. In theory it seems
brilliant..
> but words on paper about sound in your ears generaly negates a need to
> exprerience that sound. Therefore it could only stand to reason that
> univerisality in regards to no-field-field recordings should be pretty
much
> a given. I mean,, giggle.. how many people do any of us know that could be
> content with just using their own ears as a speaker/recorder? I can say
that
> I've tried.. but I still throw in that raster-noton disc to unwind before
> bed... :)
>
> I guess all I'm saying is, Yes music has evaporated, changed, & even
become
> silent.. but without the artitic intent behind the compositions truly what
> would music then be?
>
> Essentialy sound is universal -yes, but! once arranged or classified or
> quantified into a linear scafold or a magnetic strip, or capitualted into
> the liner notes via the "recorder"(person,place,or thing).. a "song is
> formed/destroyed", thus inevitably killing any legitamate sence of
> universiality. So again, intention is erraticated by the execution of this
> idea.
>
> just a freeflowing thought...
>
> Cordell / DOCTSECT
>
>
>
> >i have felt this way for along time, i think my biggest problem with alot
> >of
> >early work and with alot of 20th century composers is that some of the
> >theory behind the compositions are groundbreaking, and amazing but when
it
> >comes to listen-ablity its not very functional,, i know that
listen-ablity
> >lies within opinion but to be realistic.
> >
> >i disagree with the idea that chance compositions cant be listenable or
> >appeal to a larger audience of listeners.
> >alot of it has to the medium you are working with, and the way it is
> >presnted - both in theory and broadcast/performance. if a you record the
> >sounds of water pipes creaking for 60mins and release it as deeplistening
> >piece with an explanation in the liner notes your intentions  i feel you
> >could appeal to a wide audience,, classical music lovers, new age music
> >lovers, etc.... but if you record students learning how to play wind
> >instruments, and present it with the same liner notes your audience drops
> >dramatically, to say only avant garde fans and the like...
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>