[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] shades of grey



Indeed, and what you are speaking of Neil is repetition and difference.

And the primary thing here is that each repetition is different, both in its
actualization as a "song" or "track" and in its actual temporality
(different at every repetition of time; also different every time we hear
it). Repetition is repetition of difference.

Thus, although repetition can be schematized as containing similar elements
through its sheer vitality (the fact that it repeats), what it repeats is
nonetheless different. In fact, what repeats IS difference.

How can we identify points of similarity while recognising difference?
By scouting or analysing these points. Each song has its own interface with
repetition. This interface is an affect, ie, the way we respond to it, the
way we perceive and sensate it. The shape or mold of this interface--this
affect--is techne, basically, the shape of technology.

Differing technologies between rock n roll, punk, and techno create
irreducible sonic difference. Trainwrecks, maybe, but also the difference
between crowd-surfing and e-dancing.

Thus, there is qualitative difference between Jeff Mills and Green Day. Much
qualitative difference, in fact, to the point where we call one Detroit
techno, the other post-Cali punk, etc.. And this difference comes from so
many factors (mostly what would be banal, but I will point them out:
differing geographies, socio-historical backgrounds, times, temporalities,
subjectivities, politico-and-ethico structurations, aesthetics, relations to
all of the above, and relations to the tools of music, to the very concept
and idea of music, of rhythm, of sound--and we can go on, interminably).

What we identify as the "same" is not the same at all, for it is a specific
type of sonic repetition, even, and this is called "rhythm."

Rhythms differ. Every track has its own specificity.

Thus, there is no "single point," but rather only accepted maps of shifting
matrixes. This map can shift, as can our concept of rhythm, quite radically.

Which is why there is non-repetitive music, insofar as we can understand
music-as-event, or a sound of the to-come.

For this we would have to turn to Cage.

tV

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, graham wrote:
>> 
>> no, but they don't sound like the allman brothers. there are idiomatic
>> consistencies
>> across a range of artists and styles due to the technological interface
>> itself. live
>> lends itself toward loop-based composition and performance.
> 
> if you knew any thing about composing music all music even rock and roll
> is basedc on some kind of repative pattern... so in reality there is not
> difference in  the technique of composing between say a green day song and
> say a piece of music written by jeff mills as there is to some thing
> written by say akufen they all use different tools yes but the essence of
> writting the music is based on some for of repativie pattern ...
> this is inherant in all music its what makes it applealing to listen to...
> a single point of reference that we all can reconise...
> 
>> 
>> who's jhon moog?
> 
> the guy who invented the moog of course...
> 
> 
> neil...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

tobias c. van Veen -----------
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com
------------- tobias@xxxxxxxxx
---McGill Communications------
ICQ: 18766209 | AOL: thesaibot

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