Re: [microsound] Why are noises popular

[Manannan Mac Lir <macdara@xxxxxxxxx>]

But does there not need to be a knowledge or at least response to the
'glitch' so as it then becomes an element and not simply a glitch, thus
intentionally or unintentionally imposing some form of order on it and
not simply being a glitch, in an improvisatory situation at least where
there are more elements at play where does the boundary between a
carefully constructed work disintegrating and a 'glitch' occur? Does
failure itself not inevitably end up as part of the process regardless? I
agree with you about the previous references being misleading because of
their fundamentally compositional basis but then should you not go to the
likes of Thelonious Monk as a possible starter and trace the phenomena
from there because of the implementation of necessarily chance elements
in an overall stable(initially) environment that is necessarily
time-dependant also? Although again it is being employed very
deliberately and not as a glitch I suspect once you are even aware of the
possibility of a glitch occurring it necessarily renders a 'chance'
operation impossible . So where can the ideal 'glitch' come from if there
is an aesthetic? Does the acknowledgement of its existence not
necessarily render it an arbitrary element on some level if it occurs?
Again I'm just postulating.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Paulo Mouat"
  To: microsound
  Subject: Re: [microsound] Why are noises popular
  Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:01:10 -0500


  Except that none of the examples given is purposefully 'glitch':
  Reich's piece is just the seminal phase pattern composition, where he
  explored music as a gradual process, and in fact intended the
  slippage
  to act like a continuous transition, going over all possible rhythmic
  combinations; Nancarrow explores complex relationships using strict
  forms, in a blur impossible to recreate with human players; Ligeti
  has
  a touch of the organic in an otherwise 'mechanical' aesthetic,
  arising
  from his fascination with mechanisms, exploring metric irregularity
  (in fact, a better example of breakdown in Ligeti would be his 'Poeme
  pour 100 metronomes'--there's a video on YouTube if you're not
  familiar with the work). I would hardly call any of these, all very
  deliberate and carefully constructed pieces, an exploration of the
  'aesthetics of failure'... Just like saying that Xenakis' 'Concret
  PH'
  is the first instance of clicks and cuts :).

  //p
  http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/

  On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Manannan Mac Lir wrote:
  > I think one of the first instances of a glitch employed as an
  aesthtetic
  > element in a musical composition could be Steve Reichs Its Gonna
  Rain
  > where you've got a recording of a preacher on a tape reel where its
  > slowly slipping further and further out of sync with the original
  loop.
  > Steve Reich, Terry Riley and Lamonte(?) Young were all into loops
  but the
  > others in a more continuous fashion. You should definitely check
  out
  > Conlon Nancarrow's Player piano studies which kind of transcend any
  > standard interpretation but would fit in interestingly in your
  > discussion, also Gyorgy Ligeti's Piano Etudes. All these guys would
  have
  > been heavily influenced by African Poly-Rhythms particularly from
  Ghana
  > and the Aka pygmies in th Congo. The rhythmic cycles employed are
  vastly
  > different from standard western ideas and open up a whole new world
  of
  > rhythmic possibilities. Essentially the idea is many separate and
  > distinct rhthms being played simultaneously where there is no one
  > dominant pulse or a multiple at different speeds, to me some of the
  pygmy
  > music sounds glitched rhythmically anyway, there's way more I dont
  have a
  > clue about but it's certainly an avenue, Nancarrow in particular
  I'd look
  > out for.
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: "Paulo Mouat"
  > To: microsound
  > Subject: Re: [microsound] Why are noises popular
  > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:04:54 -0500
  >
  >
  > I think the biggest reason behind the validity of noises in music
  is
  > simply 'why not?'. For the roots of that I would point you towards
  > the
  > writings of Luigi Russolo, John Cage and Pierre Schaeffer. I'll let
  > others more conversant with the glitch aesthetic expand on the
  > specific influences.
  >
  > //p
  > http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
  >
  > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, js-alexander wrote:
  > > Hello all, I am writing for a seminar on the glitch aesthetic,
  and
  > I want to
  > > explore the reasons "why" noises etc are a valid source material
  > for music.
  > >
  > > My research has pointed me towards who and where glitch began,
  > specifically
  > > in terms of the digital era (one can trace its legacy far beyond
  > the
  > > invention of computers), and I am partly inspired by Cascone's
  > "aesthetics
  > > of failure", with the idea of a post-digital artist. I am
  > interested in
  > > hearing what others, especially those deeply involved in the
  > creation of
  > > glitch, have to say on why they compose with the sounds they do?
  > Why are
  > > you inspired to use such sounds, and why do you think others
  enjoy
  > hearing
  > > them and please be as academic/philophical as you like.
  > >
  > > Cheers.
  > >
  > >
  > > --
  > >
  > > Johnny.
  > >
  >
  >
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  > website: http://www.microsound.org
  >
  > --
  > Want an e-mail address like mine?
  > Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!
  >
  >

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

-- 
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!