Re: [microsound] tech q's

how can you differentiate between technology, interfaces, ideology, and
aesthetics? they are inseparably intertwined=2E the medium is the=20
message=2E the
problem with musicological discussions of electronic music stem from=20
exactly
this problem: too little talk of the modes of production and the central
importance of certain technological apparatus=2E=2E=2E how can you talk ab=
out=20
funk
music without talking about slap bass technique and the use of the=20
wah-wah
pedal? or aboriginal australian music without addressing circular=20
breathing?
or heavy metal without understanding distortion and all its tonal=20
nuances?
techno without the subwoofer? or glitch music without addressing=20
digital
technology? i don't see the difference=2E

g=2E

"bitmoth@littlegirlempire=2Ecom" wrote:

> i agree=2E 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=2E i agree that it's interesting when=20
new
> products come out that can help us make weirder noises or=20
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=2E that said, i do feel an affinity to small musical gestures, if o=
nly
> because it demands such intense listening and leaves so much to=20
the
> imagination=2E i think of it in a similar way to radio drama vs=2E telev=
ision,
> the contrast between something micro and something fleshed out=2E
> anyone else have thoughts on WHAT attracts them to this particular
> style of sound, or why they feel so comfortable in it?
> =2Ed:b=2E
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Kim Cascone kim@anechoicmedia=2Ecom
>