Re: [microsound] worship the decibel...

[nick knouf <nknouf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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