Re: [microsound] a microsound issue

[jim altieri <jim@xxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron,
  Thanks for your comments.  I'd like to respond to a few of them.

on 11/6/02 6:05 PM, Aaron Ximm at ghede@xxxxxxxx wrote:

>> I guess the basic idea is that in my current political world (current day
>> US), listening (as an act) is incarcerated by the state.  Of course,
> 
> I believe it's difficult to make a case that it *is* constrained.  (Well,
> there's the pirate radio question...)

Federal control of radio transmission is a perfect example of one of the
ways that the state constrains our listening.  But, in fact, I'm talking
about a different level of constraint - one which we enact upon ourselves in
order to better conform to (or profit from) the state.  I'm more concerned
with the social norms which have been established around listening,
especially binary oppositions such as noise vs. tone, music vs. sound, sound
vs. "silence", etc.  I am not opposed to the use of such opposition, but
their primary placement in our social behavioral structure seems to me to be
a site of control of how we listen to sound.  I guess I'm curious to _how_
we listen, not what we listen to.

> My own experience suggests the opposite: I with my walkman + headphones +
> means of recording + means of mass distribution is about as 'emancipated'
> as you can get. (Though I was recently chastized and nearly thrown out of
> a casino for 'illicit' recording).

The system you give is a great example of a group of components which are
directly controlled by the political economy.  Modern recording technology
(non-coincidentally, an outgrowth of military tech from WW2) contains all
sorts of embedded codes from the system in which it was produced.  Modern
recording tech makes all sorts of not-neccessarily-universal assumptions
about what is an what is not important when dealing with sounds.  Just like
when McLuhan talks about the medium being the massage and Kim talks about
the tools being the message.  And "means of mass distribution" implies all
sorts of values which emerge from capitalism and imperialism.

Definitely, though, I agree with you that such technology can be used in an
emancipated way.  Just as I mention Oliveros' use of the home tape recorder,
I think listening to recordings can lead people to all sorts of exciting
conclusions about sound and politics.  Notice, though, that these often come
from mistakes - background noise, errors, etc..  Labelling them as mistakes
shows the value which is attached to them within our political economy.
These mistakes are not to be paid attention to.  Let's face it: outside of
this list, most people don't enjoy listening to a scratched cd.  The errors
devalue it.  That's one of the primary myths of hierarchic political
organization: "That which is ordered and rational is to be appreciated and
valued, and things outside of that order - chaos, mistakes, deviance - are
to be shunned."

> Hmmm, I wrote this with "I" meaning "us" but there's a sense in which I
> meaning me makes it stronger: I'm personally interested in recording,
> listening to, and reproducing any and all sounds [albeit constrained by my
> aesthetics which range only so far from the safe].

Rad.  That's great.  My point in the essay is that your declaration above is
a statement of political significance; it is a statement of rebellion
(albeit small and personal - but what else can we hope for?).
 
> Also: IMHO I think it's a mistake to (as is the fashion) use litcrit
> locutions -- particular metaphors -- without explicitly backing off from
> them, so as to give the marrow of truth in consensus reality its due.

But the point of the essay is to draw connections between things which may
or may not be connected in "consensus reality." But, by drawing these
connections, I hope to point out different ways of constructing your own
personal reality, and that many of the ways we structure our "consensus
reality" are contingent, and politically determined.
 
> E.g., it's cute to look at conventional notation as if it was a depiction
> of prison bars, but silly to not recognize that as a formal symbol system
> it was optimized to convey information;  or to say that concert halls are
> prisons for music, but not recognize that in the absence of mechanical
> reproduction or broadcast it was a fine way to bring (high production
> value) music to (more) people.

I'm definitely not trying to be silly, and even upon rereading it, I don't
think it's silly.  When I draw analogies such as notation-prison, I don't
mean to imply that one is the cause of the other.  (Maybe that would be
silly.) But, to reduce it to geometry, parallel lines are bound to show up
when there are people looking to impose a numerical or digital order upon a
continuous, analog world.  Prison and notation are two prime examples of
that phenomenon.  I don't mean to imply any connection more or less
significant than that.  (For an evolutionary example, eye structures evolved
indepedently in different animal groups, but they evolved for similar
purposes.)

I also don't disagree at all with your characterization of conventional
notation or concert halls.  I would just again emphasize that your assumed
values in the characterization, specifically the valuation of optimization
(efficiency) and wide dissemination (market saturation), are political ones.

> At the risk of sounding old fashioned:  analysis is significant and
> revelatory in direct proportion to its rigor and clarity.

I appreciate the point, and believe me, I take what you say seriously.  I
struggle with how rigorous I need to be while still maintaining the
conceptual flexibility necessary to write about political revolution.  I
understand that the more conceptually flexible I am, the more risk I run of
completely skeptical reactions.  And that the more rigorous I am, the more
risk I run of writing another boring fucking structuralist article.  It's a
tricky balance.  Similar to the balance we need to strike in making new
music - rigor and clarity are necessary, but since the 1950's, there's been
more than enough rigorous and clear music for my tastes.  Gimme some wild
conceptual leaps - in the music I listen to and the words I read.  You can
quote me on that one.

> All this said: I think you might have an interesting area of exploration
> here, just take it slow and keep it grounded.

Again, thanks so much for your comments.  As someone asked (perhaps
facetiously) in the mini-flamewar, "what are the relations between animal
rights and microsound? Does electronic music eat meat?" I think these are
valid types of questions, and I'd like to know more microsounders takes on
political issues around their work.  I hope that the microsound list can be
a site for discussion about the politics contained within what we do.

Thanks, for those of you who read this whole thing.  Lots of email these
last couple of days, eh?

-jim

http://freelistening.org

p.s. also, notice how no one got called a nazi in the flamewar.  nice
restraint displayed by the microsound community.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html

------------------------------