[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] one copy label



what does #2 cost?

there is a part of me that likes this idea since it gives value to the
valueless and reproducible merits music has inherited through digital media.
rarity creates value. even packaging can be unique and rare enough, I think,
and this will sustain the value of the recorded media. but i can't help
thinking these are blankets we apply to music to try and make it more like a
painting, or a sculpture, or a book, and we miss the true nature of sound
and music and fail to capitalize on it.

is there not some kind of battle between music and the plastic arts, where
music attempts to raise itself to the realm of material objects? music is
invisible. it is not beheld. and yet we want to give it a cover. a
container. every musical note ever disappears into the air. every sound
dies. this need or want to capture and record music and present it as an
object worth more than its worth to me seems somehow flawed. (see emi's
attempt to sell radioheads back catalogue on a usb stik)

music has been portable for over a century now. music moves with its owner.
videos now view on the move. paintings could perhaps occupy the same space
as portable photo containers such as an iPod or portable photo viewer. why
not carry collections of images of paintings alphabetized and organized by
subject, for instance, on an iPod? Artists could release jpeg collections.
how about an archive of every painting ever? any painting caring to be
documented. Released on a 10 disc box set DVD. Or, is the internet the
ultimate archive? why the need to download? is downloading dead? should we
merely access the archive rather than continually copy it?

paintings where reproduction is not the sole notion at hand become rare. but
a painting that came with a cd? then what supplements what? sell your new
album with original paintings? kenneth goldsmith says cd's are dead. if it's
not on the internet, it doesn't exist. if a unique recorded musical object
does not make its way into digital transference, then it does not function
sonically in the wider social sphere. like ornaments it remains chained to
the mantle piece, and limited to personal listenings and intimate hearing
sessions.

i imagine a browser automator, or navigator. and a streamlining or protocol
developed in access to internet music/art. sites become albums. each track
has a visual counterpart if this is necessary. the artwork is digital. its
video. and image. text. animation. a site could simply be a generative
program and this is an 'album', a 'record'. in a networked loop of internet
album sites, controlled by a hub, and perhaps navigable from a simple remote
control, could password protection not be an answer? you are simply paying
to access the site over the control network. what need is there to download?
itunes coverflow, now Leopards 'Finder' is a good example of how it could
possibly function.

the music is to be inseparable from its location at its internet address. to
take mp3's and run would be to miss a large part of the 'picture', so to
speak. and since we are moving in a completely portable wi-fi direction,
this too can be portable. in a home context, and perhaps over more immersive
systems that include video projections and 5.1/7.2 setups, the focus is a
much more spatial experience.

to me netlabels are flawed also. there needs to be some kind of hub which
can unite musical websites. so if i put the addresses of netlabel x, and
netlabel y, and netabel q, into the hub, i basically have a play list, or
simple way to hit Next> or Back< between netlabels/sites. With thousands of
netalbels, having all these albums and hard-drives clogged with data seems
to me a waste. and a waste of tim esitting there downloading them all. the
process should be automated. i should only have to press play. I feel like
the portable hard-drive is a passing phase for digital collections. they
will become necessary only for personal data. the collection of data seems
to me an obsolete process. we should only need to access. streaming should
replace downloading.

which brings me to a central point: the environment. Wasn't an initial
promise of digital the promise of less materialism/? Now that we had pdf's,
who needs to print? But now printers are more ubiquitous and cheap than ever
before. computers and the internet offer music a way to shed its material
skin for good. in a world of growing environmental crisis, to me the
creation of billions of small plastic discs and cases is redundant. how many
ways can u dress up a plastic tray to convince people its worth buying?

the internet can still create rarity for music, i think, and purchase -
without material form - the way to achieve it seems to be in a way to limit
it's access.

(anyone ever cracked the iTunes store or figured out a way to score free
downloads?)


On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:53 PM, steinbrüchel <steinbruchel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> in my opinion it's not a very exciting object... dj's produce dubplates
> every day. i also really seriously doubt that the composer will destroy
> the
> masters. how can one control that he really does this?
>
> why would it make sense to have this also in any other format (cd, dvd,
> digital, mp3, usb stick... whatever)? in all these medias it's completely
> impossible to control the amounts of copies made.
>
> if one finds such a project interesting, then i think vinyl is the only
> way
> to go... besides i also doubt that robert hampson will perform the piece
> only once. antti rannisto will do one of the next records and he's looking
> for several gigs in and around europe:
>
> http://12k.com/forum/index.php?topic=526.0
>
> so, does that contradict the original idea? and after all isn't every
> «improvised» concert only performed once?
>
> just because it's conceptual, it doesn't mean it has to make any sense (or
> be any good)...
>
>
> Am 27.3.2008 16:57 Uhr schrieb "david.microsuoni" unter
> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > don't know if this was already announced, would like to know what you
> think of
> > it.
> >
> > it seems to me the prize-winner elitist item of the year.... :-)
> >
> > is it medieval courtliness or maybe only an arty provocation?
> >
> > Onement is a new label who releases one-copy records on vinyl (but it's
> also
> > open to other formats), run by Paris-based musician Sylvain Chauveau
> (Type,
> > FatCat, DSA). Each recording is single and there will be no other
> pressing
> > ever. Even the composer won't keep any copy of it.
> >
> > The ROBERT HAMPSON one-copy record is available now.
> >
> > The deluxe packaging is a black altuglass box made by graphic designer
> Nicolas
> > Couturier.
> >
> > There will be no other copy ever of this recording! Even Robert Hampson
> > himself won't keep the masters after he will perform the piece
> > live once. It's a real collector item
> >
> > ..::..:..::.:...::.:.::...:.:....
> > www.microsuoni.com
> > www.koyuki-sound.org
> >
>
> --
> http://www.synchron.ch .:.::.:.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>