Re: [microsound] digital (was Make your own vinyl)

[graham miller <grahammiller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>
> I'd prefer the 100 page essay, actually.

ask kim.

>
>
> I think it's beyond the scope of aesthetics to apply "an aesthetic"
> to something as trivial as the presentation medium, or even the
> compositional method and procedure.

marshall mcluhan?

>
>
> In other words, you may not be able to tell from one recording to
> another if the artist used digital tools to create sounds, or used
> live recordings that have been mixed together. The emotional response
> and subjective opinion of that piece has a lot more to do with its
> aesthetic than how it was recorded or what plugins were used.

really? how? are you so sure you can tell the difference? would we have
rock music if it wasn't for distortion? wouldn't the emotive qualities of a
guitar solo change depending on what kind of amp its played through? why
the need for producers or engineers at all, if the 'music' speaks for
itself?


>
>
> Yeah, I can hear FFT crap in every IDM composer from here to Sunday.
> I know what you mean, but I think 'digital aesthetic' is the wrong
> term, and wrong way to think about aesthetics.

okay.

>
>
> > yeesh... and i though this was the microsound list, not the
> > bluegrass list...
>
> Hey now, I am from the south! I love bluegrass. And bluegrass will
> live as long as the mountains do, regardless of what the digital
> literati have to say.

as do i. but i'm more in the béla fleck and his electric midi banjo camp.

>
>
> But this isn't the microsound-digital list either. As plenty of folks
> on here have discussed (somewhat recently in fact), there are many
> many microsound artists that have nothing to do with glitch, or even
> digital, music.

microsound can only exist with digital music. it's a stems from singular
samples, nyquist's theorem, and microscopic aural phenomena made audible
only through modern technology.  i think the whole idea is fundamentally
digital, although it's not really my area of expertise.

>
>
> > no. that guitarist is trying to use the digital media as
> > transparently as
> > possible, no mask its inherent digital qualities. the myths of
> > transparency
> > and fidelity are very much at the root of musical stagnation and
> > redundancy.
>
> I'm not following you at all, please explain what you mean here.
>

transparency, in the sense that one of the so-called 'problems' with early
digital media was that it sounded 'digital' i.e. it didn't sound as good or
'real' (talk about a loaded term) as either A) high end analogue recordings
or B) actual live acoustic events.  the whole drive toward fidelity in the
digital arts was to mask certain idiosyncratic tendencies unique digital
encoding so that it A) sounded more 'analogue' and B) sounded more 'real.'

the post-digital idea to to largely embrace these idiosyncracies and
eliminate the whole myth of realism or fidelity. i mean, if i create a
digital composition at 16 bits 44.1, that's the way it's meant to be
heard... not on vinyl, or not on some new futuristic 128 bit system... the
sound of the composition is tied to the fidelity of the media/technology.

this debate over realism and fidelity is largely a waste of time in the
long run... look at the authenticity accrued by vinyl static and noise in
breakbeats and hip hop... now there are plug-ins designed to simulate the
inherent 'flaws' of the media...

i just think the digital aesthetic is to digital media what the vinyl
clicks and cuts are to record fetishism...


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