Re: [rumori] curve of sound innovation: U can't B serious!


From: Don Joyce (djATwebbnet.com)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2001 - 09:20:49 PST


Like many whose hackles seem to rise on this concept, you are not
distinguishing between NEW and new. There will be no new letters added to
the alphabet and there will be no new sound elements added to music. Big
deal! Ok, I'm done, I think I have explained my logic for all who care to
get it, and it has nothing to do with the death of art. So forget it - now
go make some NEW music, I can't wait to hear it!
DJ
Negativland

>Sorry Don, as much as I appreciate your music, I find anyone talking about a
>cul-de-sac
>in innovation (in any field) terribly naive and hubristic! Who are you to
>decide
>what is (not)
>possible in the future?
>
>What about using nano technology to produce new musical instruments or
>loudspeakers
>(or it's overdue replacement) that create totally new sounds?
>Also it is not too difficult to imagine a future where the human ear can be
>enhanced
>genetically, or implants are connected directly to the nervous system.
>The same could be done to the vocal tract (already producing the most complex
>sounds
>in and out of nature) to produce a whole new variety of sounds.
>
>And just the fact that a certain sound source has been used before (f.i. your
>"unhearable"
>sounds below), doesn't mean that it can't be used in an alltogether different
>way!
>That's like saying John Cage's prepared piano works weren't new, because the
>piano as
>a sound source had been used before!
>
>The only limitation to musical development is (y)our imagination.
>
>Don Joyce wrote:
>
>" All you need to do is compare artistic innovation to scientific
>
>> >innovation, to see that just when you think you have learned all there
>>is to
>> >learn, some little window opens up, and a new universe becomes clear...."
>>
>> I wish you were right, but I've thought about this for quite a while now
>> and have not reached this point as a hasty conclusion in order to tweak
>> musician's pride. The fact that none of us can think of any new kind of
>> sound element, nor any new procedure for creating sound to add to music
>> which has not been tried before (go ahead and try!) is a much more concrete
>> conclusion than the idea that science can't see what possibilities will
>> open up in the future. Music is NOT science! Science is dealing with a
>> scope of unknowns which music is not and cannot.
>>
>> Scientific discoveries now rely almost EXCLUSIVELY on equipment and devices
>> which detect and analyze BEYOND the natural human senses because what our
>> human senses (the human senses of sight, sound, touch, smell) can detect in
>> terms of scientific discoveries pretty much ran out over a century ago.
>> It's all discoveries via technical equipment which artificially extends our
>> senses at this point, in relms and ranges of perception quite beyond our
>> natural human abilities to sense anything. Science has a MUCH longer road
>> to running out, if it ever does, than music does because it's NOT limited
>> to our built in sensory abilities. Music IS!
>>
>> All of music is RESTRICTED to what the physical organ of the human ear can
>> hear, period. Outside of that limited audio frequency range, there is no
>> sound to be heard. This range of possibilities is extremely limited and
>> finite compared to where science is going. And if you're thinking of using
>> "unhearable" sounds - microscopic sound, internal organic sound, ultra
>> high/low frequency amplifications, cosmic noise, magnetic fields, etc,
>> that's all been used in music too!
>>
>> The comparison of science to music is one of irrelevantly dissimilar
>> possibilities.
>> DJ
>> Negativland
>>
>> >>This was such a purely intellectual gambit at such an elemental level
>>>that
>> >>it remains necessarily one of a kind, (there are no different versions >of
>> >>silence) unrepeatable as art because once it has been done as art, it >can
>> >>go nowhere new. Like Pollack's barely controled drip paintings,someone
>> >>only has to do it once and after that others who follow the procedure
>>>will
>> >>only end up with a painterly phenomenon virtually the same as > Pollac's.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >It's things like the above that make me nervous about saying 'Never'
>> > How can you say that all 'drip paintings' will be virtually the same as
>> >Pollac? I'm not a fan of painting, but it seems to me that true innovation
>> >will only come from someone who is thinking in an origional way. And the
>> >fact that DJ (whom I have an immense amount of respect for) cannot see what
>> >particular way this will manifest itself, only makes it more
>> >interesting.....
>> > It's not suprising that no one now can see what form this innovation will
>> >take. That's exactly the point.....
>> > All you need to do is compare artistic innovation to scientific
>> >innovation, to see that just when you think you have learned all there
>>is to
>> >learn, some little window opens up, and a new universe becomes clear....
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________________
>> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>> >
>> >----------------------------------------------------
>> >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
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>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
----------------------------------------------------



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


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