re: [microsound] State of Music

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greg,

Here's some advice for dealing with teachers / profs who are totally
clueless -- and writing stuff like this in general for academe.

Begin by referencing a bunch of other people in like two paragraphs on the
history of electronic music. Do this via summary. Ie,

"Simon Reynolds writes that acid house began in 1986 in etc etc," and "Dan
Sicko repeats the mantra that Detroit techno is like George Clinton meeting
Kraftwerk in an elevator" etc etc, "this is a bit like how Kodwo Eshun
describes the varied genres of electronic music as 'rhythmachines' etc etc".
I.e.:

- Simon Reynolds (_Generation Ecstasy_), Kodwo Eshun (_More Brilliant Than
the Sun_), Mathew Collins (_Altered States_), Dan Sicko (_Techno Rebels_),
Mireille Silcott (_Rave America_), _Modulations_ (film/book) + whatever else
you know and can find in like, probably overnight (Google is your friend --
also http://scholar.google.com -- although as Public Enemy said, don't truss
it).

Then move on and reference a few of the discussions on post-digital music in
another two paragraphs. Hunt down Parachute 108 if you can ("microsounds")
with essays from Kim Cascone, Achim Szepanski, Tim Hecker, etc. The journal
Organised Sound also recently published an issue with Trace Reddell and Kim
Cascone and a few others from this list. A few of us here have written on
this material, including myself.

(Is there a bibliography on the WIKI for microsound related writing and all
this stuff? Hmm, perhaps something to check into ..)

Then voila! You can talk about post-digital music without explaining all
this stuff that everyone else has already written about. You can probably do
the summary in 1-2 pages (single-spaced).

Of course none of this advice tells you HOW you want to write about it, your
arguments and opinions on it, etc -- that's for you to say. What you cite
and don't cite is just as important ..

As for background, it's usually just a case of convincing your reader that
the literature exists and that they can take your word for it.

Once you're done, share it with us!

cheers,

    tobias

ps. The more complicated way to do this is to take your lengthy approach and
intervene critiques, asides and deflections into a historical rewriting that
leads the reader to reconsider contemporary literature on the post-digital
alongside past literature on the history of electronic music. Thus the new
intersects and transacts with the history of the old and both reconfigure
the other. But this is like the pinnacle of sophisticated writing --
certainly not recommended for starters as many crash and burn the first time
around; it takes some serious tokes.


pps. After reading Graham's advice this sounds rather dull, but it's also a
different kind of tactic ;) -- "surviving education while still getting to
talk about what you want".


tobias c. van Veen -----------++++
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org --
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com --
McGill Communication + Philosophy
ICQ: 18766209 | AIM: thesaibot +++


> so i noticed some discussion lately (as usual) about cd sales, internet
> downloading, free music, lack of appreciation, discomfort with music, etc
> 
> i'm writing a report on this for a class at school.  it totally sucks,
> because i can never make a point--i spend like 10 pages just trying to
> describe what vinyl is all about, and kraftwerk and 80's synth pop, so i
> can't even begin to really get in depth and make an argument.
> 
> so i've accepted that it's going to be a terrible report because i can't
> think of a strategy to delve straight into post digital media without a
> 10-page boring briefing on what music is all about.
> 
> but anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on music today, please share it.  i
> might quote you in my report.
> 
> ok
> greg
> 


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