[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] process and preset [was: Re: [microsound] ovalprocess - Average laptop geek?]

"the important sound of things falling apart"

if you watch charles ahearn's film "wild style"--abt
old school rap, back in the day, when it was a couple
of turntables, analog mixer and maybe a sampler and
raw rimes on top of it--you see a scene--staged or
not--of Busy Bee doing a promo on the ghetto street
corner, lietrally laying down some lines with some
friends snapping fingers beside him, saying "come to
the show, we will be there, this is who we are"...this
kind of primordial "presentationalism" (let's call it)
made me not exactly nostalgic but then more emphatic
about critiquing "presets" as unquestioned formulas in
the electronic music being made today--on the level of
the "loop": repetition is a form-lending process that
ensures a narrative teleology (sorry for the cant, but
i think that does describe it best) and it also can
just be too easy, too simple, too "given"--- so i come
to a critique of this process because i have heard
within the birth of something called electro-acoustic
music ( which i define as way of using interfaces
rather than a genre defined by intelligentsia-approved
"heroes") a strain that has quickly been impacted by
the arrival of laptops and the form-lending habits
that come with their use. in trying to avoid certain
of these pitfalls in my own work, the discussion of
indeterminacy in relation to music made with computers
is important to me. how are patterns of predictability
to be undermined and so opened to improvisation,
singularity, and-- for me most important--something
like an anti-aesthetic --not to repeat "fuck god, so
glad we are alone" paradigms but to create what is
really strange and perhaps unredeemable and have this
again be a big question posed for value...

if art speaks for itself, what speaks for what cannot
be considered art? my contention is that art is just a
way that we realize our own narcssism and
self-importance over and over again... but that there
is another way of working out of art and science into
a different actualization...

jeff gburek


--- "Mr.D" <craque@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> this discussion reminds me of the
> work of composers like Partch,
> Nancarrow and even Scriabin who
> approached the realization of their
> ideas as problems to be solved.
> while none of them have anything
> to do with electronic music, they
> all took "presets" and used them
> either in new ways or modified to
> fit their needs. the "process" of
> doing this had really nothing to do
> with the work itself, but was 
> essential to its creation.
> the results of these efforts are
> evident in how the piece works,
> how it looks & sounds. i can figure
> out how to make something appear
> a certain way (eg. monolake track)
> without ever using the same tools,
> and at the same time use ALL the
> same presets and never sound
> anything like the original.
> in other words, using tools another
> artist uses does not a chicken make!
> i also dont agree that this is a 
> discussion of ethics; if anything it's
> symantics, because one composer's
> process may include any number
> of "presets", including itself.
> i guess i am firmly in the
> art-speaks-for-itself camp. the
> act of imitation is a natural step
> in the creative process, so i think
> comparing the relative merits of a
> piece based on its origin isnt quite
> fair to the artist or participant,
> though as theory and philosophy
> the creative process remains
> infinitely fascinating.
> matt
> ___
> http://craque.net
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site

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