john saylor wrote:
music has a strange capacity to coalesce into something that feels coherent, unlike language or even visual imagery which more easily brings out the contradictions that some "re-contextualisations" can generate. of course there are extreme strategies of montage that don't function this way, but overall i don't see that re-mixing often gets further than confirming the interesting age-old observation that "we never bathe in the same river twice". but again, maybe i don't have enough exposure to re-mix pieces and shall certainly try to get hold of some that were mentioned.
but that is how they establish an individual and open releationship to the world of sound- by re-using the material. instead of thinking of the available world as 'sounds you can make with a piano' or 'sounds you can make with a couple of guitars, drums, and a ton of amplification'; this is 'sounds you can make with electronic audio processing'.
musicians always try to copy what they like. how many bands try to sound like kraftwerk once in a while? re-using [re-contextualizing] sounds made by others is just a more direct way of acknowledging the influence.
so while there are plenty of problems in the world today- i see re-mix culture as a positive thing, an example of how the creative impulse refuses to die.
cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx website: http://www.microsound.org