Re: [microsound] the great depression of experimental music? (OT)

[chthonic streams <chthonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> chthonic streams <chthonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >  why blasphemy?  must we accept the received wisdom of eastern
> >  mysticism that all physical objects are bad? 
>
> That is not my point.  I see music as a social experience.
> Interaction between musicians doing it, between the musicians and the
> audience and the among audience members is an important part of the overall
> experience.  Perhaps not for everyone, but it is.  And I am not
talking about the 'spectacle' factor here.

ok, personal difference of opinion here then.

however, if music is always a social activity, why is the usual 
expectation of live concerts a one-way experience for the most part? 
it's generally considered rude for people to socially interact too 
much during a live performance; you're expected to direct your 
attention to the performer and be silent.  or else make noises in 
appreciation of the performer, at appropriate times.  i know there 
are exceptions, but the situation i just described is pretty much the 
norm.  some performers may chance their performance based on audience 
reaction, some don't.  these are variables, rather than hard rules 
about live performance that make it a truly interactive and social 
event.

i agree that music *can* be social, and can even have some degree of 
interaction.  but it's not necessary, and many people simply have 
personalities that don't desire this, or don't make it a priority. 
often the sales of recorded music far outstrip concert sales of the 
same artists.  it's simply not feasible for musicians to be in as 
many places and perform for as many people as their recordings can 
get to.  not only that, but in many cases (depending on the venue), 
the concert setting makes additional changes to the music that are 
unwelcome, possibly diminishing rather than enhancing the artist's 
original intent.

another point is, if music is always meant to be social, why are 
there headphones?  i think listening on headphones is one of the more 
popular ways of listening to music, given the proliferation of 
walkmans, discmans, and now ipods.  i also want to point out, lest 
you claim this is some kind of "diminished" experience, that  they 
are not entirely isolated.  for example, walking outside listening on 
headphones, you can still hear ambient sounds of your (continually 
changing) environment, and you have the visual accompaniment of the 
scenery.  this can certainly enhance the listening experience, 
although is not technically interactive (it's a one-way experience 
for you only).  personally, i almost always select music to listen to 
on headphones based on the journey i'm going to be taking, method of 
transportation, and time of day.  i think others may do this to some 
degree, although it may not always be conscious.  a similar argument 
could be made for listening to music in a car while driving alone; it 
is not social, but does interact with the environment.

one interesting exception of late has been gallery installations 
where people are given headphones to listen to the same music (or 
perhaps different music) while they're in the gallery space.  they 
are free to be social and interact, but the headphones also cut them 
off from each other.  however, this is a specific artistic concept 
rather than a social norm.


>  > look at it as a piece of
> >  visual art. 
>
> what, a CD?

yes.  the artwork on the CD and surrounding it, in whatever form it 
takes.  you can think of the CD and its packaging as a canvas, albeit 
pre-stretched and in a predetermined size.  although sometimes 
limitations such as this can help art  rather than hurt it.  perhaps 
i argue for this more because i'm also a visual artist. however, i 
think many non-artist musicians have some kind of concept of the 
visual presentation of their music.  they can then hire artists to 
help realize this part of their vision, turning it into a multimedia 
experience greater than the sum of its parts.  perhaps it seems 
overly grand or silly to refer to a CD in a jewel case with artwork 
as multimedia, but by definition it is.


>  > a painting or sculpture. 
> >  just perhaps mass-produced. or
> >  not. 
>
> Well, I guess I'm into unique things...

you're not a fan of warhol, then..  : )

and yes, while the CDs themselves are mass-produced, i think i 
mentioned in another post the option of custom packaging, in some 
cases done by the musicians.


>  > what's wrong with associating these things together?
>
> Nothing wrong with associations.  I don't have a problem with music
> being put on a fixed medium.  I have a problem with the fact that this
> fixed medium is taking over.

i see this as more of a problem that the majority of the producers of 
the medium are unimaginative and focus on profit rather than art.  it 
took years for CD packaging to become more interesting.  as the 
format matures, artists come up with new ways to make the medium part 
of (or at least fit with) the message.  after several years, these 
enhancements become more widespread.

i also notice an attitude on the part of some people who discuss 
music that "packaging" is a dirty word.  this is possibly because of 
its association with advertising and ordinary mass-produced 
commodities.  however, i do believe that packaging can be art, 
because graphic design can be art.  it depends on how it's done and 
the intentions behind it.


>  > are these better formats on offer from download services?
>
> Depends where you're looking for downloads.  Also, they will simply
> remain as obscure alternatives given mp3's widespread.  Unless a
> substantial number of subscribers to such 'services' wakes up and
> demands better quality.  Which will not happen, I know.

sadly, you may be right.  i don't beleive the explosion of the mp3 
format has to do with quality.  it has to do with ease of 
acquisition, and price (usually free, especially if downloaded 
unscrupulously).  i know this has been said before, but it's the 
digital, and thus electronically transferrable, version of cassettes. 
people make "mixtapes" and trade songs.  not a terrible thing in 
itself, it can help to spread the music.  i love mp3s and the 
internet as a way to check out unfamiliar music; i think every artist 
should do it.  but i don't believe in this format being the final 
destination, but a sidestep.  think of it as a shortcut on your 
computer that leads you to the real thing.


>  > setup.  i don't like songs associated with files sitting on a hard
> >  drive in a folder, accessed in a list that i play at once or put on
> >  random shuffle.
>
> This isn't much different from a CD:
>
> HD = fixed medium = CD
> files on HD = files on CD

now you've lost me.  if a file ultimately ends up on a HD (whether of 
a large computer, laptop, or ipod), why is that any better than the 
fixed medium of the CD that is "taking over"?


d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org