can Jason Lescalleet change the world?

[Seth]

A kind of generalised – it means whatever – is difficult to account for the shared genres of music and systems of communication in general.

Do you think I'm a dawk?

People account for those things. Music stops making sense when you remove people from the equation.

I wasn't so much comparing you to Richard Dawkins as pointing out that it's what other people might be doing. Less a response to your points, more the way they're made. Seemed like the obvious observation when you mentioned that the people you accuse of religious behaviour were chasing you away from their village. It's possible to be an atheist without getting that reaction.

[jliat]

A kind of generalised – it means whatever – is difficult to account for the shared genres of music and systems of communication in general.

Do you think I'm a dawk?

People account for those things. Music stops making sense when you remove people from the equation.

I think music stops being music when people are removed. Unlike noise. Whether music makes sense or not.

I wasn't so much comparing you to Richard Dawkins as pointing out that it's what other people might be doing. Less a response to your points, more the way they're made. Seemed like the obvious observation when you mentioned that the people you accuse of religious behaviour were chasing you away from their village. It's possible to be an atheist without getting that reaction.

Well I don’t think much to Dawkins – my presentation skills or lack thereof I apologize for – and for typos – on a *lighter* note here is a short video in which Dawkins appears… and music!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPLxZr1Kfg

[timdrage]

I draw the conclusion that people regard music as something very special – almost (almost) supernatural…? For all my statements –of this being trivial - and a possible indication – the villagers pelted me with garlic and perused me with pitch forks and flaming torches…

It's an apt analogy because your theory turned out not as the perfect scientific breakthru you had in mind, but instead an ugly mishmash of ill fitting parts brought to life prematurely and left unable to communicate properly; tragically misunderstood by all, stumbling out of control thru the thread frighting peasants and small children until its tragic yet inevitable destruction. .

(Sorry!!)

[simon reynell]

Yes, I think the image that Seth picked up on is a revealing one:

Jliat says: “For all my statements…….the villagers pelted me with garlic and pursued me with pitch forks and flaming torches.”

I think there’s an element of wish-fulfilment in this, arising from a self-dramatising neediness or attention-seeking, and I wonder if this also applies to Mattin and others who like to play the role of enfant terrible. If you make provocative statements (whether in performance or on discussion forums) and people respond positively and are impressed, then you win because everyone likes to be liked or considered impressive. But if people react against you and are hostile, then you still win because you console yourself with the belief that they’re just ignorant plebs who aren’t sensitive or intelligent or radical enough to appreciate you, and this reinforces your self-image as an undervalued prophet / martyr.
It’s all a bit tiresome. As my mother used to say, “don’t look; they’re only wanting to be noticed.” So I’ll log out now, and pay no more attention to this thread.

[faster]

[jliat]

Please – this related to a graph on troniks and nothing to do with this thread. Either start a new one here or join the original. But I might add I'm still puzzled at the hostility. Why get so angry because random data – noise – does not lend itself to compression – as well as structured data – music / text. As if its my fault? No drama – unless you make it so. Provocative – how? Random binary data has a greater Sdev than non-random. No big deal.. Noise resembles random data. No big deal. Your Mother should know – that's a McCartney song.

[jliat]

your theory turned out not as the perfect scientific breakthru you had in mind,

(Sorry!!)

So you should be and all the other rude boys posting pictures of willies. They all should do what their mommy's tell them. And Tim - I never said it was " the perfect scientific breakthrough" – you cant read my mind though you might think you can? Its almost as if I'm paying these guys to be 'outraged'.


2,4,2,3,4,2,4,2

2,7,1,9,4,8,1,5

The antichrist – I don’t think so? Scientific breakthrough – no. No matter.


Tim - a reminder-

"When measurements are corrupted by random variations, they are said to be affected by noise. Since the standard deviation is a measure of spread in a data distribution, these random variations can be characterised by the standard deviation of the measured signal. That is, the larger the standard deviation, the noisier is the measurement."

From Newcastle University – introduction to dealing with measurement noise.

[timdrage]

Yes I was just being silly with that really, didn't mean to say you did say. Pure sarcasm hence the preemptive sorry

But I might add I'm still puzzled at the hostility. Why get so angry because random data – noise – does not lend itself to compression – as well as structured data – music / text.

Not a single person was angry at those things. They were annoyed by the contrary, confusing and inconsistent way you presented them, the flawed method and the apparently circular logic (initially at least) you applied to the results (stdev might measure Harshnoisiness... SO if something which doesn't really seem like 'harsh noise' such a sinewave has a high stdev then we need to use different definitions of 'harsh' and 'noise' so that it can be) and the kind of goalpost moving you're doing RIGHT NOW.

GAH I JUST CAME HERE TO POST EVA SCREENCAPS AND GLOAT AT MY OLD SARCASTIC POSTS WHY AM I ACTUALLY ARGUING AGAIN?! (-__-#)

[jliat]

Sorry about this tangent - i'll reply here

http://chondriticsound.com/forum/viewto ... &start=420

if anyone is at all interested.

[mynameissally]

I think the crux here is acknowledging that people's ears are just more open today than they were at some other point in history. they'll probably be even more open at some point in the future. most "pop" music currently incorporates musical techniques that were truly "experimental" by the standards of past decades. and future pop will incorporate the experiments of today. The idea that sounds can be weird and still be a form of music isn't so new anymore. There's nothing inherently political anymore in calling something music even if someone else thinks it's just annoying sounds. It is permitted by society to enjoy listening to whatever you like.

RJ made a quick point a couple pages ago by now probably that nobody picked up on about your notion of "music venue" and I think it's worth reiterating. A large thrust of this thread is predicated on the experience of going to concerts at places like The Stone, IPR, or Roulette, and expecting to be artistically challenged. Which is, plainly, stupid. These are primarily homes of the Establishment in "experimental music" and not anyone actually fucking around with new ideas that might stimulate you. For the most part, what passes for Avant those places was already absorbed by pop culture as normal long ago when nobody was looking. So obviously if you're looking for something to change the world, you're going to be disappointed.

Yes, people's ears are more open today than they were 50 years ago... I'm sure there's an interesting psychoacoustic explanation for this. This is why parallel fifths were banned back in the day and now you have to practically train musicians to hear them. This explains why listening to Cage Shock is not really a radical activity today. But this doesn't explain why there is a general lack of sound-arts today that open up the ear the way Cage did 50 years ago, the way Schoenberg did 100, the way Brahms did ... etc. I can't tell what you're trying to say here because you acknowledge that music derived the radical 60's aesthetic (let's say EAI for sake of argument) is not radical, but write that "future pop will incorporate the experiments of today." What are the sound experiments of today? please direct me to their forum.

An interesting answer, which you may or may not be getting at, is that the sound arts can't be radical in the sense that AMM was radical, because our ears are now open to everything. An hour long CD of HNW... we can tolerate that, maybe enjoy it. So what can actually challenge us in the way that 60's radical musicians challenged their listeners? There is undoubtedly some kind of unmade art in this world that is still antagonistic, but I--along wth a number of people in this thread--don't believe that this antagonism can be achieved by sound alone, which is why there was a detour some pages ago into this idea of an "expanded field" of sound. This is also why, I think, jliat says that to be a musician is to have an essence. 'Music' implies certain restrictions which might have been fully explored by 1970 (organized sound unfolding in time?) --- 'art' does not.

A lot of this thread is predicated on my disillusioning experiences at old hat highbrow NYC venues, correct, but I don't think there are music venues (in new york anyway) that I can expect to be challenged. Silent barn? "Some grimy house show"? Being unsupported by government grants and located in Ridgewood doesn't make the music subversive, resistant, radical, or whatever. While the bossman at Roulette ages and maintains his belief that anthony braxton is worth spending all his grant money on, I haven't really seen young musicians scoffing at this. I think there's a general consensus that anthony braxton is, in fact, as challenging as it gets.

Further, I can go to an art gallery/venue that is a firm home of "the Establishment" and actually be challenged. Think of something like the Whitney biennial... the art there attempts to challenge, and the discourse on that art gives the impression that the attempt is at least somewhat successful. I think I'd concur.

I understand why you think it's "stupid" that as a 20 year old I went to the Stone every few weeks, sat next to a bunch of 60 year olds, and was bored by what I heard. But I don't think there's an alternative venue that I should've been going to.

intellectuals love to overestimate the actual importance of their pursuits.

Fair enough. I don't think Adorno is the racist elitist you make him out to be, and I think his ideas on music are extremely valuable, but arguing about that would be a little bit tangential. Thanks for contextualizing the "opium for the masses" metaphor. If Marx believed (and you are trying to say) that our inevitable need for things like music and religion arise due to systemic issues, and that we should leave music alone and focus our activist energies elsewhere, fine, but I disagree.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

If Marx believed (and you are trying to say) that our inevitable need for things like music and religion arise due to systemic issues, and that we should leave music alone and focus our activist energies elsewhere, fine, but I disagree.

why?

[mynameissally]

well, for one, Marx is not my hero. I've had to read some of his most famous writings in some 101 classes and a frankfurt school class, but other than that i'm not well versed enough to put a critique on the table. I wish I could write something a little more compelling than "fine." but I haven't read a word of what he's said about art.

I think I've mentioned in various spots throughout this thread (in response to you... maybe) how I think music can aid the larger leftist fight. The thesis is not very philosophical or elaborate at the moment. I like saying things like "art can reorient our attentive faculties" because of an artist/thinker/Cage scholar at my school, who has no doubt influenced my thinking here, who would use that kind of poetic language to discuss the importance of experimental work, like that of Cage. I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the idea mentioned a few days ago that "expecting [the radicalism of experimental art] to filter up anywhere is about as unlikely as trickle-down economics actually trickling down." as someone else mentioned earlier, Dada had an influence on contemporary culture,... but we of course can't measure it with a yardstick.

but I do understand that you hold the belief that political and artistic discourses should be separate, you've made that clear, and I understand that this is a popular belief, and I respect that.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

but I do understand that you hold the belief that political and artistic discourses should be separate, you've made that clear, and I understand that this is a popular belief, and I respect that.

no, not at all, I have no real outspoken opinion on the matter (accept for the fact that I think culture generally tends to follow technology etc and not the other way around). Artists, musicians, ... should do what they want to do. I only think there are more pressing matters on this planet to write papers about than the possible role of politics in experimental music and the possible role of experimental music in politics.

[mynameissally]

ah, I see. You may be right about that... it occurs to me all the time. My roommate is a hardcore occupy-type activist and when he rattles off statistics about whatever, civilians dying in gaza, I feel like my artsy form of engagement is total bullshit. But, I've been involved with this experimental music issue since before I could provide a good definition of "capitalism", feel like this is my jam, have some questions that aren't often asked, and feel like if there's 'potential' in experimental music, I might as well be one of the dozen kids on the planet who tries to find it rather than a blip in the international occupy scene, or what have you.

/personal detour

[negative potential]

ah, I see. You may be right about that... it occurs to me all the time. My roommate is a hardcore occupy-type activist and when he rattles off statistics about whatever, civilians dying in gaza, I feel like my artsy form of engagement is total bullshit.

That's because it is. Sorry to sound so dismissive.

Look, I know I'm going to sound like a patronizing old fart, but take it from somebody who is both ultra-political as well as a music fanatic: as tempting as it might be to believe your cultural tastes are somehow connected to your philosophical/ethical/normative ideals in some immediate way, this is just an illusion. That doesn't mean there isn't great political art (Brecht, Pynchon, Gang Of Four, Picasso's Guernica spring immediately to mind), it's just that culture doesn't change the world. It can change your way of perceiving the world, which is also good, but honestly, in the grand scheme of things, to the extent that culture has any impact upon political consciousness, Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" has done far more for progressive social change than any of Eddie Prevost's or Mattin's writings (and I like Prevost and Mattin's writings).

But, I've been involved with this experimental music issue since before I could provide a good definition of "capitalism", feel like this is my jam,

Yeah, again, this is going to sound totally condescending, but we've all been twenty-two at some point.

Edit: Off-topic, but for goodness sakes, go read some Marx, not just the crap excerpts some humanities professor assigns. Read Capital, at least Volume I. Get Michael Heinrich's Introduction if that seems too daunting (disclaimer: I translated it, but this is still an objectively great recommendation).

[mynameissally]

That's because it is. Sorry to sound so dismissive.

It's OK. This is the general answer to "can Jason Lescalleet change the world" that I seem to be receiving in this thread (answer: "no, not really at all, and we're tired of this question") but with an apology added! I'm familiar with your response.

When I posed similar questions to a member of a certain EAI-pioneering group of the 70's, he had no idea that his music was involved in a semi-political aesthetic movement, that experimental music has ever aspired to do anything for political consciousness, that "if it's not enjoyable, I don't like it," and told me I should see a psychiatrist. No apology added. The politicization/critique of experimental music seems to be a twentysomething hobby.

maybe I'll jump off this bandwagon 2 or 10 years down the road and throw my energy somewhere more traditional. but I hope not.

[jon abbey]

maybe I'll jump off this bandwagon 2 or 10 years down the road and throw my energy somewhere more traditional. but I hope not.

what bandwagon are you on? if you think music can change the world, go try to make music to change the world. that would be a bandwagon, this is just a haphazard thread.

[RFKorp]

Yes, people's ears are more open today than they were 50 years ago... I'm sure there's an interesting psychoacoustic explanation for this. This is why parallel fifths were banned back in the day and now you have to practically train musicians to hear them. This explains why listening to Cage Shock is not really a radical activity today. But this doesn't explain why there is a general lack of sound-arts today that open up the ear the way Cage did 50 years ago, the way Schoenberg did 100, the way Brahms did ... etc. I can't tell what you're trying to say here because you acknowledge that music derived the radical 60's aesthetic (let's say EAI for sake of argument) is not radical, but write that "future pop will incorporate the experiments of today." What are the sound experiments of today? please direct me to their forum.

Change happens slowly. Everything is more dramatic when turned into history. Cage could only open people's ears to something because a large enough group of other people's ears were ready for it. Same for whomever you want to mention.

An interesting answer, which you may or may not be getting at, is that the sound arts can't be radical in the sense that AMM was radical, because our ears are now open to everything. An hour long CD of HNW... we can tolerate that, maybe enjoy it. So what can actually challenge us in the way that 60's radical musicians challenged their listeners? There is undoubtedly some kind of unmade art in this world that is still antagonistic, but I--along wth a number of people in this thread--don't believe that this antagonism can be achieved by sound alone, which is why there was a detour some pages ago into this idea of an "expanded field" of sound. This is also why, I think, jliat says that to be a musician is to have an essence. 'Music' implies certain restrictions which might have been fully explored by 1970 (organized sound unfolding in time?) --- 'art' does not.

Of course antagonism (assuming that it's even a valuable goal) is not created by sound alone. But it is also not created in conjunction with smell. Or sight. Or taste. Perhaps one could approach it physically. But assault is illegal. You cannot offend or upset people with art today. Or I should say you cannot offend the experienced listener/observer/student/etc. But then again you never really could.

I'm sure if some respected composer managed to present a symphony for orchestra and amplified entropy featuring The Haters at a subscription series concert hall a la the famous outrages of history, Cage, Stravinsky, whatever, you'd have the same rioting old fogeys. But who cares? Everything is context. When 4'33" premiered, it was only an outrage because it happened at Woodstock. If it had been presented in conjunction with an event at, I dunno, the Living Theater for exampe? it wouldn't have been any more singular an event than the first time Mattin asked an audience to question why it was even bothering to listen respectfully to his performance, it would have already been entirely within scope.

A lot of this thread is predicated on my disillusioning experiences at old hat highbrow NYC venues, correct, but I don't think there are music venues (in new york anyway) that I can expect to be challenged. Silent barn? "Some grimy house show"? Being unsupported by government grants and located in Ridgewood doesn't make the music subversive, resistant, radical, or whatever.

Being unsupported by government grants makes it increasingly possible for a venue to curate entirely to subjective personal taste. And when its run by someone with an open mind, this means the quality to shit ratio (on a scale rated by this criteria of newness that you seek) tends to be much higher in my opinion. It also means the shit is sometimes even more deadly boring than the established mediocrity of grant-funded institutions. But that's the risk you take to find a moment of inspiration.

While the bossman at Roulette ages and maintains his belief that anthony braxton is worth spending all his grant money on, I haven't really seen young musicians scoffing at this. I think there's a general consensus that anthony braxton is, in fact, as challenging as it gets.

you want someone to scoff? I'm a young musician scoffing hard as fuck.

Further, I can go to an art gallery/venue that is a firm home of "the Establishment" and actually be challenged. Think of something like the Whitney biennial... the art there attempts to challenge, and the discourse on that art gives the impression that the attempt is at least somewhat successful. I think I'd concur.

I'd love to know what impressed you at the biennial. There were only a couple pieces at the latest that left enough of an impact for me to even have a vague recollection of them. And there were a number of pieces I clearly remember being majorly bored by and confused as to why they were worth showing. I mean. are you talking about the Arika performance series? Then sure, I'll trust there may have been some great moments though I couldn't attend much of it since it was so much daytime programming and I have a job. Sean Meehan's performance was stunning. But is it artistically revolutionary? There is no overt statement in Sean's performance practice. and completely invisible in the museum setting were his usual efforts to seek out nonstandard performance spaces, the side of his work which does in a way tie into other more overtly politicized elements of human existence.

I understand why you think it's "stupid" that as a 20 year old I went to the Stone every few weeks, sat next to a bunch of 60 year olds, and was bored by what I heard. But I don't think there's an alternative venue that I should've been going to.

Depends on when you spent those few weeks. The past year or two has been one of this city's worst dry spells for venues. There hasn't really been anywhere to present work that has no history. So you didn't have a better option. That's suddenly making a dramatic turn in my observation. There seem to be more small gallery spaces, multi-purpose store fronts, and house venues available and welcoming of risk.

[mynameissally]

what bandwagon are you on?

an ideological one. I do make music too, though.

[faster]

Cage could only open people's ears to something because a large enough group of other people's ears were ready for it. Same for whomever you want to mention.

The idea that "ears are more open now" strikes me as seductive but false. Could you possibly have, in addition to the ears you have for today's experimental and pop music, the same ears for whatever people listened to in 1910 as people back then did? Sure, you may hear stuff as music that people back then may not have been able to enjoy/appreciate, but I think the same goes the other way to some extent. I can hear a baroque allemande or a bebop solo "as music," but no way do I have the ears for it that someone raised on it, dancing to it, inhabiting its atmosphere and cultural context, would have had. There's a smug sense of triumphalism in this teleological (Whig?) view of history as a "progression" leading to something, that doesn't sit well with me; if it's true, after all, what it's led to is us, which makes us a culmination. And I don't buy that.

(I'm not arguing for stasis or equivalence, just to be clear. I just suspect the changes that happen over time are far more haphazard and lossy than you're assuming.)