[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] formulaic microsound
The reasons I enjoy the artists I enjoy are not because they're
microsound artists, but because I enjoy their music. To what extent
can one *really* pin down what is or isn't microsound, and by that
token what the 'microsound style' really is? Does the definition of
style become more strict the heavier we scrutinize it?
As an improvisor I actively try to clear my mind of ego, influence and
idiom - I'm definitely Cage / Bailey disciple in this respect. When
I'm expressing myself this way, it's difficult to know what's
happening. I define my 'composition' not as the form of the work I'm
about to present, but as the palette of materials I use. I have my
personal set of experiences too, but the primary thing I'm doing is
listening and evolving with the sound. I'm not that concerned about
style except in the loosest sense of structure and form.
I think many people approach through-composition (as opposed to "live"
composition) in a similarly stream-of-consciousness way, and involve
improvisation all along the creation process, even if it's to edit and
mangle into something else and add in the mix. They do things to
create a sort of musical cognitive dissonance that cause the style to
break without their control.
So how do these 'elements of style' get into the picture? Do they
appear because a composer feels the need to express something through
a chosen style because of the nature of what they want to express? Or
is it the raw expression that manifests itself in such a microsoundic
way? Could it be simply the nature of sonic materials gathered?
The microsound projects are a good example where artists in a niche
are creating specifically with the elements of microsound in mind. But
I know I personally wouldn't be creating the music I know how to
create if I did anything other than what I do, but I still know how to
direct that composerly vision in a microsound direction instead of a
rave siren drum and bass snare rush direction. And maybe sometimes
that's merely a question of appropriateness, where you're performing,
or what other works stand beside yours in representation to help
impart some sense of overall completeness.
Many artists in many styles are the ones that stand out because they
took a style and learned how to express themselves in rich ways. We
are drawn to their art because of the high degree of technicality, or
the vividness of color, the sheer size of the work... any number of
reasons. History is rich with those who stand out in unique and
lasting ways, whether they pushed the definitions of style or excelled
in the idiom itself. Is it correct then to limit the possibilities of
what a style can be, or can we think about stylistic evolution?
If we can evolve in our concepts of how sound can be arranged, then it
follows to allow the same latitude in idiom itself. Bailey certainly
was the hugest proponent of non-idiomatic improvisation, but you could
also say he grew into his OWN idiom - people say that about Cage too.
Does a style mean it is limited to a single person if it's so unique
that none other come close?
I believe it's my job as an artist to explore, and in turn those works
I enjoy most are those which impart a certain sense of the unknown. I
don't think it's a matter of invigorating any style, per se, but to
seek out new things and be constantly open to possibilities. Though I
enjoy pushing the boundaries of style, I enjoy straight up style too,
but mostly I enjoy hearing the sound.
On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:39 PM, David @ Audiobulb wrote:
Music has a history of creating structures that reflect an acceptable
aesthetic framework. From classical to rock. From jazz to IDM.
Sounds are
placed within a composition and ultimate arrangements emerge.
At what point do the originators of a style and the creative
champions of
style exhaust the potential expression to the point that what
follows could
be described as formulaic - working from a template.
To what extent has this already occurred within microsound? Small
field
elements extrapolated and stretched across minimal drones of noise
with
underlying subtle textures developing and diffusing to the end point.
What enables the work in this genre/style to stay invigorated?
David Newman
Audiobulb Records
http://www.audiobulb.com
http://www.audiobulb.com/ab-shop.htm
http://www.myspace.com/audiobulb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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