Re: [microsound] tech q's

[graham miller <grahammiller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

how can you differentiate between technology, interfaces, ideology, and
aesthetics? they are inseparably intertwined. the medium is the message. the
problem with musicological discussions of electronic music stem from exactly
this problem: too little talk of the modes of production and the central
importance of certain technological apparatus... how can you talk about funk
music without talking about slap bass technique and the use of the wah-wah
pedal? or aboriginal australian music without addressing circular breathing?
or heavy metal without understanding distortion and all its tonal nuances?
techno without the subwoofer? or glitch music without addressing digital
technology? i don't see the difference.

g.

"bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:

> i agree. i know i'm new to this list and i don't post much, but i get
> turned
> off opening up my inbox and seeing what looks like a democratic
> music magazine reviews section. i agree that it's interesting when new
> products come out that can help us make weirder noises or whatever,
> but i am much more interested in the IDEAS behind the art we make,
> which is, i guess, why i've always felt that genres are really bizarre
> things to rally around, if only because the same idea can be
> implemented in many different ways, and just as successfull,
> potentially, in a rock song as in a microsound song as in a house
> song. that said, i do feel an affinity to small musical gestures, if only
> because it demands such intense listening and leaves so much to the
> imagination. i think of it in a similar way to radio drama vs. television,
> the contrast between something micro and something fleshed out.
> anyone else have thoughts on WHAT attracts them to this particular
> style of sound, or why they feel so comfortable in it?
> .d:b.
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Kim Cascone kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>