microsound as net.art

[ndk <ndkent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think that the microsound remix projects serve as an example of
> collaborative curatorial activity possible only because of the internet.
> The fact that samples are freely shared as viral agents inspiring entirely
> new work is, I believe, an exciting aspect of internet music culture.  I
> know that tape trading has been going on for a long time, but the digital
> transmission of raw elements is unique, and I think microsound has tapped
> into that quite extensively.

A worthwile point but I can't agree on several aspects of the example
given. The work is most definately collective but even though I made the
personal choice that there were too many steps and tools to master to
join in, I really don't follow the project as having a collaborative
curatorial aspect past that of the collective. 

While "viral agents" is one of those terms that seems popular to add
topicality and acceptance in essays that implies infection,
contamination, etc. where I would think a term like seed material would
be more to the point though admittedly less sexy.

> I know that tape trading has been going on for a long time, but the digital
> > transmission of raw elements is unique,

Agreed. I see a many fold increase in speed especially in the ability to
re-collect/collate work but I see nothing intrinsically unique in the
transmission of raw elements per se.  I do see a uniqueness when some
sort of meta-code or application is being transmitted in lieu of
soundfiles and most definitely if its bi or multi directional in dataflow.

> > How open is microsound to appropriation by the hip wing of the
> > software industry?

I would think that would depend on the "street cred" one gets or doesn't
get based on the fashionable tools they use. The real sorry situation is
when it involves exclusion and one upsmanship becuse one uses or doesn't
use certain tools.

Is it more or less than the appropriation of hip wing of the software
industry by microsound?

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