Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[morgan quaintance <plugcs_123@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think i will say one final thing on the subject and then leave it at that.

To the person who took issue with me over my autechre, and matthew barney examples, you have a valid point, but have really totally missed what i was trying to say.

Yes matthew barney will talk about how his films are made IF ASKED, but when talking about the cremaster cycle the predominant discourse centres around the meaning of the work. Cremaster is not about film stock, or digital imaging technology, or the type of lenses made to capture the images.

And as far as Autechre go, its the same thing, they will talk about gear IF ASKED, but that is not what their work is about. If you don't believe me check their 1997 interview in the wire. I am sure you will probably want to site their sound on sound interview, but that is a magazine designated to process not aesthetics.

The thing is, alot of disciplines talk about process, but not to the degree that electronic music does.

I often find that talk of process is used to justify work that is not really much of anything at all.

I think it was Michael Craig martin (am probably wrong) who placed a plastic cup filled with water and put it into a gallery, identifying it as a tree. The substance of that work was practically non existant, but the concept behind the art was pretty hefty, i mean there was no point in staring at the cup because it was obviously not a tree. The art was the concept. I feel that this sort of thing can pass in a discipline like fine art, which since the idea of conceptual art emerged in the 60's, has been increasingly about theory and language and blah blah blah, but i feel that using a wedge of theory to justify a piece of music may eventually run the risk of invalidating aesthetic considerations in music, in favour of esoteric theory. 

I mean can you imagine someone saying, yeah the music is really nothing but the theory behind it is the lick. I mean thats what 4:33 seconds was all about, and even Duchamp's fountain. They were both attempts at eradicating the cult of the thing, in favour of the cult of the idea....a truly bourgeois move.

 

 

 



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com