[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] Art Brut
Few comments on art brut and,"unintentional" sound and composing:
This is an interesting theme. I listened to Microstorias's disc (Model
Step Two) a while ago and found it captivating precisely because of the
qualities of "human failure" in it.. Some of the most important things I
lately is that some of the sounds we just "don't like" at first are maybe in
fact one good
way to explore deeper into our perceptions and how they are (aesthetically)
This theme rose in my mind because I have been involved lately in two types
activities: first, composing (sitting in my room, staring at the screen and
and electroacoustic "free" group improvisation in a relaxed setting with
I have found interesting that in an improvisation setting with electronics
I'm most interested
in those things that appear to me like they are "dropping out of phase" -
out of phase
of "conventional" harmonic, rhythm and dynamics. Some of the improvisors I
happen to be interested only in the sound-result when it happens to have a
with "more conventional" styles of music. What I mean is that they seem to
improvisation is successful when it somehow "achieves" the state of
For me this goes the other way round. When composing - and when
improvising - I find
that the most interesting things are those that I'm not yet familiar with,
that are somewhat weird, strange, or wholly Other. I find that on
those sounds that are new for me I can learn a lot about myself and my
accept as "good" only certain types of phenomenons.
So, to conclude, I think that the human "failure" or the "brut approach" in
music gives me
the most pleasure aesthetically and sensorily. And by pleasure, I don't just
mean "fun" -
the "pleasure" can also exist on the experience of frustration, pain and
what I'm talking here is something about *experiencing* whatever comes in my
sonically speaking. And then dealing with that (as David Tudor suggests).
The focus on "human failure" does not shut out (in my opinion) the
emerging (and maybe "conventional") structures either. I just sometimes
think that the
forms should emerge from the nature (if there is a one) of the sounds (and
of them) itself. Something to do with the intention to really stay aware of
the changing nature
of phenomenons, staying aware of what is happening in my surroundings. But
I'm not really
a philosophical or aesthetic purist here, either: I think that "loose forms"
and "sounds itself"
could exists together.
Right now I'm interested in an improvisational approach to produce the
I'm going to use in a composition later on. And when the composing work with
those sounds starts, I often find myself "scrambling the signal" a little
bit more, just to
make sure that all things are not 100% in my control. For me, full conscious
things often gives "boring" results (that menas they don't affect me in any
intellectually or any other way - they fail to stimulate my interest). I
really like to be surprised.
It is kind of a deal between myself and the sounds: we co-exists peacefully,
both giving the
other a little bit of power.
Just throwing a few thoughs in the wind. Not really knowing anything stable
It is all in a state of flux.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [microsound] Art Brut
For a good microsoundy snapshot of human failure in music, I would suggest
microstoriaâ??s model three, step two.
As usual though, brut is about putting on fake identitiesand exploring the
world around us, something that microsound with itâ??s focus on modernism,
intricateness, and all around navel-gazing is terrible at.
I know Iâ??ve expressed this terribly; if anyone has any deeper insight than
these scratches, please write.