Re: [microsound] worship the decibel...

[mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I must add to this points that, in my death metaller experience, it became
clear to me that the bands that sounded more agressive and heavy were the
ones that mixed loud sections with soft sections in their songs.

The ones that kept in the "lets see who is faster and louder" soon were
overpassed in intensity by the other ones and thier music became more
useful to take a nap. A good example of "sleepy heavy music" is norwegian
black metal, very constant (great music though).

Hernan

www.cooptrol.com


>
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Graham Miller wrote:
>> volume is intrinsic to musical aesthetics.
>
> Thank you for the history lesson I didn't need, and for the ad
> hominem attack.  Now, can we discuss the issues?
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear about this in the original e-mail, but Hernan
> made a point that I was trying to make.  I understand the importance
> of volume to the aesthetics of music, and of performance in
> particular.  Yet the question is one of dynamics versus constancy.
>
> For the Futurists, the urban sounds of mechanization and
> industrialization were novel: sounds never heard before, at volumes
> greater than anything natural.  After living under this for nearly a
> century, I think we've gotten the point.  In fact, industry's
> movement to the spatial periphery of the city I think can be
> partially traced to a desire among city dwellers for less "noise".
> As well, the Concorde's ultimate demise can be somewhat tied to the
> lack of cross-continent flying rights, due to the disruptive power of
> the sonic boom.  The outrage over the Navy's use of damaging sonar
> suggests that many understand the dangerous power of acoustics.  (And
> the military's subsequent development of acoustic weapons for "crowd
> control" reinforces this point.  As is the use of continual, loud
> volumes in war/torture as a means of debasing the "enemy".)  So I
> view this as a gradual movement amongst the public towards less and
> less unnecessary "noise", the somewhat disruptive effects of
> unmanaged cell phones notwithstanding.
>
> (We can debate endlessly about whether this is "noise" or "music" or
> what have you; I just want to make it known that I acknowledge the
> contention of these terms.)
>
> Loud music can definitely be tied to rebellion, the experience of
> death, pain, and suffering.  It can of course be tied to certain
> styles, as I mentioned in my original e-mail regarding punk and
> rave.  I have enjoyed many a rave or techno show feeling the weight
> of the sound in my arms, in my legs, in my body as a whole.
>
> Yet when I go to a concert that is ostensibly experimental or
> microsoundish, I expect more subtlety.  Is it true that the only way
> to express anger, death, rage is through loud volumes?  Haven't we
> experienced enough of that already?  Where are the new ways of
> getting these incredibly detailed, nuanced, dare I say, _wonderful_,
> emotions across to the audience?  To ourselves as the musician?  Do
> we merely want to resemble how the rest of the musical world
> expresses these things, or do we want to create something innovative?
>
> (I also acknowledge the danger of using the royal "we" here, as the
> recent disagreements over MySpace indicate quite well that this list
> is not a hive mind.)
>
> So I come back to my main point, and the one that Hernan picked up
> on: why the need for constant, painful, physically damaging volumes,
> when the dynamics of the decibel (amongst other technics) could
> perhaps get across your desires in a more forceful way?
>
> nick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>



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