Re: [rumori] curve of sound innovation

From: Don Joyce (
Date: Fri Mar 16 2001 - 23:24:01 PST

The addition of new kinds of sound elements HAS been of great interest to
the musical avant guard throughout the last century. It has inmvolved a
virtual redefinition of what might be music. It has no meaning to music
beyond that and does not necessarily produce good music, but it HAS been an
intensive exploration - and one that is now completed! I AM NOT PUTTING YOU
ON. But then all art is a put on, isn't it?I wish I could find people as
amused by this particular end to musical exploration as I am. I do think
it's funny.... considering we all also learned in the last century that
"anything goes." In that frame of mind, we actually DID TRY EVERYTHING,
successfully using up every possible sound and procedure to make sound! Ha!
The joke's on us.

>>I can't prove a negative. Simply give me a "brand new" sonic element in
>>music, or a procedure to make it, and I will tell you where and when it has
>>occured in music BEFORE now as a precedent in the history of music. This
>>ridiculous argument is all about musical precedent... what music might
>>consist of that has not been part of music before. I contend there are NO
>>sonic precedents left to be achieved by modern music.
>It occurs to me that you are having us all on with this "music is dead"
>business. It is exatly the same po-mo argument critics have been making
>for the last 20 years about why ART is dead.
>Am I blowing your cover? The argument that the addition of new kinds of
>sounds integrated into music is the detertmining factor for whether or
>not music itself is new presupposes that the goal of music practice has
>been the addition of new kinds of sounds. What about the directions the
>rest of the post-1964 art world has taken? Works that embody a question
>about the role of music, or which consider new forms that can be
>considered music, for example, do not require "new" sounds to be
>integrtaed. Music went along through centuries of development without
>"new" kinds of sounds (toot, whistle, plunk, boom) without anyone
>complaining about "new" noises.
>I'm teaching this kind of stuff at a University now, so it's all in my
>mind at the moment, but for those who might care, I refer to Crowther,
>Paul, 1990 "Postmodernism in the Visual Arts: A question of ends" in R.
>Boyne and A Rattansi, eds. _Postmodernism and Society_, New York: St.
>Martin's, 1990. 237-59
>This essay pretty much puts the "Art is Dead" controversy to rest and
>probably applies to "Music is Dead" as well.
>Anyone wants me to get into ridiculous explicit details, I will; I'm that
>kind of guy.
>Naked Rabbit P.O. Box 36673 LA CA 90036 |||||
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.