Re: [microsound] this list is the least banal disinteresting one that i've ever received

["::\)" <r3dshift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

someone convert this thread to tones and make music with it.

only then will it have served some useful purpose.

this thread is the embodiment of banal, disinteresting, communication

-Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Store" <store@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: [microsound] this list is the least banal disinteresting one that
i've ever received

>   This part of text is coming from a discussion, Dagmar and I are having
> for some days now. The "results" are planned to be published in the
> theory part of http://www.retinascan.de . Just to add another banal,
> disinteresting thread to the many that take part here (to say it with
> Homer S.: "and if you haven't realised: this is irony - i-r-o-n-y!!!")
>
> >> I think I will come back to that difference later when it comes to
> >> the production of art for individual silent 'consumption' (such as
> >> reading/writing a book or composing/listening to a piece of
> >> experimental electronics) versus art/entertainment for a larger
> >> audience in a group context (such as theater/spectacle or techno
music).
> >
> > I'm not sure but I think you haven't come back to this, the difference
> > between social practise in larger groups and the singularisation of
> > silent consumption. May it be that - in a system that controls
> > subjects by singularising them - the production of bedroom music and
> > its reception under headphones and on computer terminals is
> > politically strongly contraproductive, that it supports stagnation?
>
>
> Did I mean to say that?  Not as bluntly, but now that you put it that
> way ... Hell that's a very tricky question but full to the point I
> think.  I wish others would join the debate here, because I can't claim
> to know the answer.  It makes so much sense to put it that way.  On the
> other hand I am a subject so much trained by singularisation.  Some
> things one can only find out alone, I am sure about that, at least
> people raised the way we were here in the modern West.  The tradition of
> silently mulling over either a question or a piece of music, the
> tradition of perceiving something "unconditioned by others around" ...
> but that is certainly a somewhat impoverished experience compared to
> shared experiences (this is not yet a political argument, merely an
> aesthetic one).  When it comes to the political dimension, it makes
> sense that silent, singularised consumption must be counterproductive.
> On the other hand, to cite a somewhat polemic example, I can't see much
> of political transformation in a rock concert filling a soccer stadium
> either.
>
>
> Just another thought that might be important in this special thread is
> the difference between artist and consumer. I'm not sure if thiswill
> help, if this is even just evident, but I realized that we both are
> talking from different angles of the field we're moving on. I will
> copy/paste this out of the discussion and put it in the mailing list to
> get some input. List, please take over!
>
> .--- ... schrieb:
>
> >hi
> >
> >[deletions throughout]
> >
> >( 03.03.01 14:22 -0500 ) DEVON ARMSTRONG:
> >
> >
> >>i can't understand how so many people can be interested in so much
> >>shit!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >so why do you keep digging through it? [...]
> >
> >
> >it's probably better to stay a lurker.
> >
> >
>
> No way!
> Store
>
> >
> >
>

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