Re: [microsound] sound art / music

[Boris Klompus <boris.klompus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Damian Stewart wrote:

"with that in mind, can you give some examples of music where you think the
piece is not the expression of ideas or beliefs, or at least of
'preferences' in the way i described above?"

Well, if you count the expression of ideas as a way of seeing a hypothesis
through, even in the most basic sense of let me see what happens if I have
this Bb note follow this D, and afterwards I'll place an E, then no, I can't
name you any examples of a piece of music with out some sort of expression
of an idea. I think this very basic sense of experimentation, or trying this
out is an expression of ideas, so I guess in that sense I agree with what
you are saying.

But, if you mean the expression of ideas to be a more tangible, although
still abstract expression of (for example): this is what my busy tuesday has
been like, from there to the less abstract, a love song or something, there
are many pieces that don't follow this mold.

Getting back to serialism, I did mean matrix serialism, and I'd say Milton
Babbit's Three Compositions for Piano are completely devoid of my second
example, while again, I think it's imposible to divorce anything from the
first. Even the most assembly line pop music follow that to a certain
extent, and of course the lyrics of it follow the second example.

And those pieces by Babbit to my ears at times sound like a piece of improv
Jazz on the piano, but they are on the exact opposite end of the spectrum.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Greg Pond <gpond@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> depends on the point you are trying to make- there may be too much
> biography where it doesn't belong- cult of personality can be a horrid
> distraction to good work-
>
> why do so many electronic sound practitioners give themselves invented
> names? Scanner vs Ted Nugent or Pollock vs LeWitt- there is a difference-
> biography is only sometimes relevant and often too distracting, IMO
>
> check out Mario Costa and the Technological Sublime
>
>
> craquemat wrote:
>
> > but in society, it seems very connected to WHO the creator is. we seem
> > to have a preoccupation that something which is musical must also be
> > virtuosic, or somehow transcend a plane of understanding where it is
> > understood by many to be "good music," that behind a true piece of
> > engaging music there is an underlying layer of control and genius by
> > those creating.
>
> and this is bad why?
>
> music and art is always the expression of one person's ideas/beliefs/etc.
> to my mind this is why it's valuable. with all the technology that often
> sits between us and the musician/sound artist, it's really easy to forget
> that what we're hearing is in some way a codified expression of some
> creator. yes, it is all of these physical things like vibrations, digital
> bits, patterns on harddisks, etc, but it is also the product of a
> consciousness.
>
> surely this is the point? communication?
>
> --
> damian stewart | skype: damiansnz | damian@xxxxxxxxxx
> frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>