Let's shorten this.
"In any case, I disagree that mere 'content' is the only
aspect of music that composers have left to manipulate, that's totally
extreme."
Jon
The extremeness of this realization is what got to me too. That's why it's
worth repeating!
I'm never saying that content is the only thing left to manipulate while
making music, just that I see much more potential in possible uses of
content to actually become something "new" in music now.
Examples of unusually "original" new sounds is OF COURSE why they don't go
away. We like it! It's not going to die of impossibility, it's going to
thrive on variations.
My child, I can't remember names anymore, I'm becoming useless, you must
carry on now, go towards the light...NO! Wait, Don't go towards the
light!... Oh, you decide...
DJ
Negativland
PS If it wasn't for the Arabs, you never could have been 0 in 1970.
>hey sir (oh god, everyone else groans, not another 3 page email)
>
>>It took about
>>100 years to flesh out the final fringe remains of "original" sounds
>>possible in ALL music before I had the nerve to say every truly new form
>>worth doing has been done and that is now an "old" and (experimentally
>>speaking only) an actually worn out idea about how to make more music.
>
>Criminy, I'm simply not with you on your fundamental point of departure.
>The last ten years has seen folk music's discovery of digital sound
>synthesis and an incredible explosion of non-acoustic sounds that have by
>definition _never been heard before_. I suppose you could argue that these
>'new sounds' are simply refined variations of the electronic tape
>techniques pioneered 50 years ago, but I'd think you were wrong; the last
>ten years has seen a pronounced rise in music that exists solely to explore
>previously unsynthesized sounds that themselves largely determine the form
>of the music. Maryanne Amacher's local 3am concerts this past summer left
>everyone present audibly murmuring 'I've never heard anything like this in
>my life, what the fuck is this SOUND?'
>
>To me, this music _sounds_ fundamentally different. Maybe this is a simple
>subjective response, my hypernaive natal outlook, after all I'm only in my
>early thirties. But you can't say we're all wrong, when this music is
>being executed and perceived by us young-people as an exploration of new
>sounds in and of itself.
>
>>(And that Otani show was nothing "new," I first saw
>>performances indistinguishable in form to that in the mid 60s, just the
>>sonic content was different.)
>
>Otomo Yoshihide, you mean. Otani's the guy we played with on OTE. So by
>'form' you mean the structure of the music through time or something? But
>you admit the sounds were different. 'new' even? I thought there were
>some bizarrely new textures and sounds in that I.S.O. show. But sure, the
>form was classic 60's free jazz, granted, that's what Otomo grew up on.
>
>You seem to be making some kind of blanket statement, lumping in 'new sound
>sources' with 'form' simultaneously: so you're saying that not only have
>all 'sounds' been discovered by now, but so have all varieties of 'musical
>form' to structure them with? Well, (to repeat) I think new sources are
>still being developed. I also think 'form' is changing more gradually than
>we can safely determine at this vantage point. More and more people are
>involving themselves with the experience of music; to a degree we're
>seeing this in home remixes of commercial music, but it's not strictly
>about sampling, it's also about hardware and software synths and tools on
>every desktop, online collaborations, and music playback options (mp3
>players and beyond). These aren't merely social factors, I believe these
>things will gradually evolve musical form, in ways we can't quite even
>relate to yet. In any case, I disagree that mere 'content' is the only
>aspect of music that composers have left to manipulate, that's totally
>extreme.
>
>>I don't think the sound of sample work is worn out to the same degree that
>>"original" music's sound is yet
>
>I think the 'sound' of 'found sound' has reached a saturation point.
>Mentioning this e-thread to my friend Drew, he recalled the 'bootleg
>records' that have taken London by storm this year that splice disparate
>but intact pop songs atop each other (like Whitney Houston's "Dance With
>Somebody" with Kraftwerk's "Numbers") -- these 'illegal' white labels now
>have their own NME top 10 chart. Nothing's less shocking! ECC's 'Whipped
>Cream Mixes' used to confuse people simply because it existed, it didn't
>occur to people that such music could happen, now it just sounds like one
>of them 'bootleg records' (no offense, Mark -- the exact opposite, you saw
>it coming). People are growing familiar with sampling not as a
>revolutionary practice, but rather as another expression of
>hyper-consumerism, mere nostalgic repetition. Put Oswald's 'O Hell' or
>John Cage's 'Variations IV' on in a bar, and instead of freaking people
>out, they'll just think it's the new DJ Spooky record. Put Maryanne
>Amacher's record of 'original music' on in the same bar, and watch people's
>preconceptions about music shatter as they run for cover. claiming that
>'sample based music' is less worn out than any "original" music is PUSHING
>IT.
>
>>(that's a finite range of possibilities in music
>>and it includes annoying noise, but even with that it had ALL been done by
>>1970).
>
>Is that the year you stopped going out to shows or something? I wouldn't
>know, I was zero years old.
>
>Look, I'm hearing your central points about folk music, reiteration, making
>the paradigm shift to seeing creative endeavors less as a matter of lone
>individual pioneers and more as a gradually evolving series of
>contributions (though granted some individuals contribute more than others,
>and I've got my own personal musical heroes). Right now we're in trouble
>with the cult of the lone creator who 'owns' his intellectual property,
>where admiring the individual who 'created' the music often seems more the
>point than the communal act of everyone enjoying the music. If that's the
>basic idea you're promoting, that's great. But you're being too hardline;
>if for no other reason than the fact that each generation experiences it's
>advances in music as 'new'. Whenever you start hearing yourself say that
>the kids are simply objectively wrong, a warning bell should go off.
>
>>I'm just a folk critic now, rarely surprised by anyone's idea of "new," now
>>living way out in the country with a limited exposure to new artists and
>>their confounding attempts to make new music. I'm gonna just review my own
>>work in my old age, try to decide if it should even be called that, and
>>hope I can get garbage pickup out here...
>
>Now you're just being funny again. Insane.
>
>jl
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>----------------------------------------------------
>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
>----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.