Re: [microsound] re:: politics of parasites

[jim altieri <jim@xxxxxxxxx>]

interesting spinoff discussion about home video porn... but I just wanted t=
o
go back to some of tobias's points.

on 12/21/02 9:38 AM, tobias c. van Veen at tobias@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Buying software does not lead to autonomy, and it is a poor definition of
> the temporary. I'm with Brady Cranfield, again in P107, when he says that
> the politics of noise don't lead to direct action, and that it would be
> na=EFve to think so.
>=20
> Stealing software, and making it--those are steps in a better direction. =
I'm
> with the hackers on that one. The same goes for creating temporary and
> autonomous spaces, and thus temporaneities, to en-gage the body with soun=
d,
> rather than signing up for the acousmatic chair club.

I agree that buying software does not lead directly to autonomy.  The
interesting thing for me about software instruments is the ability for
people to share their code, and incorporate little bits of others' code int=
o
their own.  Shared software systems like this are definitely temporary... i=
n
what way are they not? My software instrument, which is always changing, ha=
s
all sorts of code written and shared by other people... I think that's rad.
Although I have sympathy for coders who wish they could earn a living off
coding, I do agree that stealing software is part of one of many possible
routes to autonomous, capital-avoiding behavior.

But what I think is more important about Tobias's post, is the embedded ide=
a
of choosing which theory is 'better' or more correct.  This mode of
discourse seems to pervade the microsound list, and larger forums as well.
It's something I do also, but on reading his post, it makes me think that i=
n
matters of theory, maybe it's useful not to think of 'picking sides', but
rather appreciating different situations for which different theories are
useful.  As far as saying that it's na=EFve to think a certain way... well,
statements like that really rub me the wrong way.  I think it's a fine line
between saying that you disagree with someone because s/he is na=EFve, and
calling someone na=EFve because s/he disagrees with you.  Name calling is not
a good way to encourage discussion.  Can't two intellectually mature people
have different opinions on an issue?

Anyway, back to the point I was trying to make about glitch as a genre.
Just like theories are techniques for spurring new trains of thought,
musical techniques (like glitch techniques - skipping cds, noise
amplification, etc.) are ways of approaching the creation and manipulation
of sound.  When a theory is turned into a "school of thought," or a side to
be picked by a debater, it loses it's ability to grow, change, and adapt.
By analogy, I'm arguing that establishing 'glitch' as a genre hampers its
practitioners' abilities to musically grow and explore freely.

What do y'all think?

peace,
jim

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