Re: [microsound] politics of digital audio redux

[David Geraghty <dbgeraghty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

what would you do if you found out people said 'fuck
digital' because they just darn preferred the sound of
analogue and they didn't use any political framework
to make that decision?

can you even accept that that might be the case?

i mean, i say fuck analog. because it's too big, half
the time. 

not sure if i have a political stance on it.

yet

i'll keep reading (just kidding i'm trying to
unsubscribe but it won't do anything).

-d


--- Kim Cascone <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> yes these questions are very important but I'm also
> looking at the  
> use of various audio technologies as a political
> statement...
> - for example:
> - an engineer uses a 16 track analog multi-track
> recorder for  
> recording drums -- is this a political act on some
> level?
> 	i.e., what sorts of decisions are involved in the
> decision to record  
> drums in this way?
> 	is it a reaction against digital audio? and if so
> why?
> 	what are the political issues surrounding buying,
> using, maintaining  
> and advertising the use of older technology such as
> analog multi-tracks?
> 
> a related question:
> from Wikipedia:
> 'a quote on the back cover of Songs About Fucking:
> "the future  
> belongs to the analog loyalists. fuck digital". --
> Steve Albini'
> - can the opinions of Steve Albini (whom I admire
> btw) w/r/t the  
> technology and preference for analog audio be parsed
> as political? in  
> what way?
> 
> a story:
> - I was friendly with some people who ran a new age
> label here in San  
> Francisco back in the early 90's around the time I
> was running Silent  
> Records...the label was flush with cash and had a
> very expensive  
> digital recording and mastering studio.
> I was sitting in their studio one evening and my
> friend asked if I  
> wanted to hear a new master he was working on.
> He put on a DAT of a new release they had just
> finished mastering and  
> played it over a pair of very expensive high-end
> speakers.
> The label manager sat back and lavished me with a
> pristine, super  
> clear, shimmering, digital audio sound field...it
> was an unmistakable  
> achievement in digital audio, a superb mastering job
> and a very  
> beautiful mix...I heard many thousands of dollars
> worth of equipment  
> and many man-months of time poured into this perfect
> yet otherwise  
> unspectacular and vapid release of new age
> music...in the words of a  
> record producer I met years ago: 'it sounds like
> money!'
> 
> the new age mastering listening experience reminded
> me of being at an  
> AES show where they used to put on a Roger Nichols
> engineered CD to  
> showcase a pair of speakers or something costing a
> lot of money...it  
> had a sexiness that showed off the equipment in its
> best light...
> 
> but the point is that the amount of
> capital/technology at the label  
> managers disposal represented a competitive
> advantage to him...and in  
> a not so subtle way he was letting me know that he
> was able to create  
> objects which displayed a quality of audio
> perfection -- while I was  
> not able to. This value seemed more important than
> the content itself  
> -- as if the content was in service of the
> abstraction of digital  
> audio perfection.
> 
> for some insight into the trend of digital audio
> perfection see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
> 
> aside: what strikes me funny is that most of the new
> age studio's  
> compliment of technology can now be found on a
> Powerbook running Max/ 
> MSP and Pro Tools (except for the speakers of course
> -- which are the  
> most important tool for composing music I
> find)...and that his  
> equipment only gained him a fleeting moment of
> 'perceived power' in  
> the breakneck paced marketplace of digital
> audio...again see the  
> Wikipedia article on the SACD vs DVD-Audio format
> wars...
> 
> it was this experience that made me smile when I
> first came across  
> Oval's track 'The Politics of Digital Audio' -- as I
> knew exactly  
> what Marcus was critiquing right off the bat...
> 
> but it raises certain questions:
> - what is the role of 'perceived quality' in a
> musical artifact?
> - can digital audio technology (or analog tech) lend
> a fetishistic  
> veneer/false value to an artifact?
> - does something like SuperAudio augment or diminish
> an artists work?
> - does technology such as Super Audio or DVD-Audio
> perform as a type  
> of advertising?
> - is the display of expensive technology merely a
> device to attract  
> potential consumers?
> - how is something like 'glitch' a political
> statement w/r/t digital  
> audio?
> - did Marcus (Oval) succeed in making a political
> statement with his  
> music?
> 
> there are other aspects to this I find interesting
> from a Marxist  
> perspective...e.g. the roles of exchange vs use
> value...does digital  
> audio add an illusory exchange value to an object?
> does it add use  
> value?, what does a fetishistic collector get when
> they buy a  
> SuperAudio mastering of Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of
> the Moon'? what  
> type of status does that sort of object afford her?
> etc etc...
> 
> 
> 


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