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

[chthonic <chthonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Yes I have seen various performance settings which 
transcended that
>model.  One was listening to music in a pitch-black environment.  
In
>fact, even walking into the space revealed nothing.  You had no 
idea
>how big the space was, how many people inside, where the 
'stage' was
>etc...  After that various artists/groups would perform, some
>electronic music, others mixed with acoustic instruments and you 
could
>see nothing and noone, not even the person sitting on the floor 
right
>next to you.

sounds interesting.  some live shows do actually benefit from the 
removal of the visual aspect.  mira calix (basically a DJ set done 
from a stage) comes to mind.


>I was also involved in a project this summer where a performer 
(a
>cellist and video artist) did a performance in a parc.  She was
>sitting under a tree with her cello (amplified) and improvising.
>Videos (manipulated in real-time by audio signal analysis) were
>projected from the trees down onto circular screens on the 
ground.
>The audience was advised prior to the performance to feel free 
and
>walk around and explore the entire environment.  They either 
stood or
>sat instead watching the performance.  The audience is not yet 
ready
>for such deviations.

unless they're sort of forced...or it just depends on the audience.  i 
recently played a bill with a band who set up in a circle around the 
room, sitting in chairs with the audience and their amps all 
around.  they also handed out bells for the audience to use during 
a particular song.


>> is it simply blind consumerism, fostered by greedy 
corporations?
>
>This is, in general, how I see it.  

i do agree in the case of the most cold-heartedly manufactured 
mainstream artists.  there is also a degree of "hype" in more 
independent and underground circles too, but i think of that as a 
necessary evil to cut through the noise.  you can't sit around and 
wait for someone to lift up the particular rock you're under.


>The music is not always marketed because the producers 
believe
>it's got great artistic value.  Believe me, I know.

no, a lot of the biggest music is produced purely to create product 
to sell to a broad or niche market of easily-duped people.  they 
may actually enjoy the music, though it seems like it has no "food 
value".  so they get something out of it i suppose...but they are 
simply not exposed to other forms.  

it would be good to get more experimental/electronic/etc. music in 
museum installations, and not purely small avant-garde art 
spaces which generally preach to the converted (not to meniton 
jaded).  i see those situations as a way to interest people who 
might not normally hear of this music.


>Also, if I have specific needs for sound reproduction I will control
>in what venue and under what cirumstances I will perform.  It may 
>not always be possible, I know. 

yes, good luck.  the best way is usually to bring your own gear for 
every little thing, even choose the space yourself.  this can also 
mean putting up the money to rent such a space.


>> i understnad that music, once it leaves the artist's hands, is by
>> necessity going to change somewhat, but it would seem that 
an artist
>> would want it to remain as faithful to his/her vision as
>> possible. otherwise every piece may as well be uploaded to an
>> interactive music site in multitrack form, allowing anyone to 
remix
>> the work as they please.  i know this has been done, but this is 
one
>> option rather than the norm, nor do i personally see it as a 
desirable
>> one.  at this point in time it smacks of novelty, although in theory
>> it's quite interesting and liberating.
>
>Tha also depends on a personal aesthetic.  It is true that in most
>electronic music genres the final composition is set in stone (or
>rather a CD or some other digital medium).  This seems to be a 
norm in
>fact that encompasses way too many musical genres.  everything 
is in the same basket.  

yes, generally my personal aesthetic demands that things be set 
somewhat in stone, a "definitive version".  however, live 
performance is the arena when the stone takes life again.


>Is jazz suitable to be immortalized on a CD?  Yes and no.  We're
>thankful for orginal recordings of jazz from the 30's 40's etc 
because
>otherwise it would be difficult to learn about their forms, styles
>etc.  But I would love to buy a CD by, say, Pat Mentheny and hear
>different solos every time I put it on.

see my comment above.  in the case of jazz, i agree with miles 
davis, the recording is sort of a blueprint, and you make the 
building in different ways each time you do it live.


>Well, I certainly hope everyone in the audience is after the same
>thing.  I don't think it is an artist's role to target various types
>of tastes and bring audiences together.  I think that an artist will
>have something to say and various people will connect with that
>'message'.  Wishful thinking?  Maybe.

no, target marketing is the role of publicists and advertisers.  but 
inevitably people will show up to a concert who don't actually want 
to be there and have no interest in the music (friends being 
dragged along by fans, or places where people just go to shows 
because it's something to do).


>> there are a wide variety of ways of making music, and some 
simply
>> don't lend themselves to live performance very well.  
>
>Yes, as well as some don't lend themselves to a fixed medium.

see my comments on jazz.


>I reiterate that I have no problem with recorded music.  I
>have a problem with the place it occupies in the musical 'culture'.

i think the uncertainty of musical formats of late has created a 
greater demand for live music.  certainly here in nyc this seems to 
be the case.  people have less respect for the album (or the 
downloaded equivalent) than for going to shows.  of course here 
some of that is the hipster factor, but some people genuinely like 
the artists performing.


>> ok, i see where you're coming from with this now.  i also have to 
say
>> the opposite can be true; a CD or mp3 can reach someone a 
lot easier
>> than a live show (which often costs as much or more than 
recorded
>> music).  how will people know they want to go see a show if 
they
>> haven't heard a recording first?  unless there happen to be 
multiple
>> artists on the same bill and by chance you catch another's 
performance.
>
>Yeah, but why would I want to go to a show if I know the music by
>heart since I bought a CD?  And then, aren't shows ways of 
promoting
>the CDs?  So that means you're supposed to go to the show, like 
the
>music and buy the CD.  I disagree with this mentality, somewhat, 
but that's another story.

i don't see what's wrong with this.  it works both ways.  you can 
accidentally catch a band live and then buy the CD as a souvenir of 
the show.  it may not have the same energy, but it satisfies the 
archiving you alluded to with the old jazz recordings.  some artists 
are simply better live.  i will see the legendary pink dots whenever 
they come around, but their albums don't do it for me.  other artists 
make brilliant, labyrinthine, multitracked recordings and would be 
boring live, partially because of the reasons you mention (simple 
reproduction of the CD performance).  i think music needs to exist 
in both forms to have more artistic options, as well as methods of 
discovery.


>Best of luck.

thanks, you too!


d.

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