Re: [microsound] 1D

[billashline@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

ben nevile wrote:

>
> I understand what you're saying and would be willing to accept your 
> thinking if your statements were less sweeping.  Kim, I respect your 
> opinion, so I have to confirm what I think you just said: do you 
> really believe that this is the ONLY way for "music" - all music, I 
> can only assume - "to progress"?   that there's no more room for 
> progress in music created by a physical means?

Well if I can speak for Kim yet again,what he's saying is that we need 
to get rid of the "labor theory of value" and "exchange value" (read: 
use value under both) in order to do more interesting things with music. 
 When an audience cannot be confirmed on what's causing a sound to be 
produced, they're not assured of getting "their money's worth," whether 
they like the sounds or not.  That's the performative dimension.  The 
dimension implied by the labor theory is whether we  can confirm that 
the musician is really adept enough to be earning the pay that she's 
getting.  If all she's doing is sitting at a laptop and watching things 
happen, we don't really know if she's "talented" because it cannot be 
confirmed.  By "we" I mean audience.  But if we can see her play a 
cello, we can rest assured that we were indeed giving our money to a 
worthy musician.

In pornography, the male ejaculation is called the "money shot."  It's 
an apt analogy.  Without the money shot there is no revenue.  The 
audience always calls the "shot" as it were.  Foreplay is always already 
the "dress rehearsal," never the main event.

If the audience doesn't come to hear your performance or leaves 
disheartened in many instances, it's because they didn't get the money 
shot.  How can you expect your music to be properly heard if the 
audience can only think this way?  How can music progress?  Does that 
clear things up a bit Ben?

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