can Jason Lescalleet change the world?

[timdrage]

WELCOME JLIAT \{^_^}/

That graph is missing a mental toxicity axis.

MEIN GOTT how did I manage to get thru 29 pages of "Towards a statistical (objective) Measure of HNW/HN" without thinking to start posting Eva graphs, i'm ashamed of myself. <(U_U;)

I'd have gone for this I think



Oh well I am still proud of:



Here guys have some off-topic ACTUAL scientific theory of music:
http://arxiv.org/html/1202.4212v1

Reading a music theory book is like reading a medieval medical textbook: such books are full of unjustified superstition, non-reasoning, and funny symbols glorified by Latin phrases.

[max]

all music is good

[faster]

Is the Chondritic board down or sth?

[RJMyato]

Is the Chondritic board down or sth?

no my links probably just messed up

or did you mean wrt me tim and jliat posting here

[timdrage]

It's still there, but since Clemon and jliat (and I?) drove away all regular posters it's now 100% self promotion posts, about 40% of which turn into dumb drama threads where Simple/FAP runs some some absurd pedantic hypocritical criticism into the ground and/or totally freaks out about some stupid thing that he thinks is 'funny' or 'bad' about the release usually based on his complete misunderstanding of what he's even looking at.

[max]

The only concern of a musician should be to open up possibilities. This is the only criticism I can give Lescalleet, for as new as his music might be, there is the feeling that it is more of a destruction than an opening up. This is my criticism of most EAI. It's just a feeling I have, that there hasn't quite been found the elevating necessary. That's what drives me, personally. The nihilistic works, as I see them (Songs about Nothing) are great but do generally fail to excite.

So what is needed is to determine the parameters of excitement, the dimensions of it, and maybe to shift toward a mentality away from nothing to something. This is just a tendency or a feeling, and it can be expressed in the creation of music. There are so many parameters we have, and we won't forget the deconstructive (I mean, isn't that what a lot of EAI is?)... but maybe forging instead of "thinking." Does that entail "pop?"

I don't think so. I think it might entail a different mind-set that can be applied. But I do suspect a mindset behind all music.

I don't have the ability or desire to have a discussion about what I've written in this post. I don't have the authority or self-respect for that kind of thing. Instead, I'm just putting the idea here, whether or not it is a "smart" idea, I can't say. But it is something I have been thinking, personally, with regard to my creative process and justifications.

I've always had a fear of the "pseudo-intellectual," and my justification for that is that I'm young and middle class and don't understand half the shit I read, so when I try to use the ideas it feels at least a little bit disingenuous.

[RJMyato]

as far as i can tell "pseudo-intellectual" means someone who is trying to read philosophy but is not sufficiently upper class in the eyes of whoever is throwing the term around. nothing really to be afraid of

[mudd]

destruction? wha?

m

[faster]

as far as i can tell "pseudo-intellectual" means someone who is trying to read philosophy but is not sufficiently upper class in the eyes of whoever is throwing the term around. nothing really to be afraid of

Sometimes, for sure. But not always.

[negative potential]

But like JLIAT I'm suspicious of pleasure/enjoyment as the most desirable form of engagement with a work of experimental/avant-garde art...

"Fun ist ein Stahlbad", eh?

Honestly, while I respect the (limited) influence Adorno had on the German value-form school, and I think some of the sociological insights of the Frankfurters are valid, I think their aesthetic positions are unmitigated elitist crap.

Your statement above is a prime example of this, because the implicit assumption is that "pleasure/enjoyment" is an entirely valid approach to "lesser" (presumably "popular") music, whereas precious "experimental/avant-garde" music, because of being inherently more worthy, makes entirely different demands upon an audience.

Well, I don't accept the "low art" vs. "high art" division, not even as enunciated by a putative Marxist like Adorno, because it masks all sorts of problematic -- even racist -- assumptions, while obscuring the origins of the European "art/classical" music tradition as either church music or basically dinner music for the European aristocracy.

Fuck that, some of the best music of the past Century or so -- retroactively aggregated under labels like Jazz, Blues, Hillybilly, Country, Afro-Cuban, "Latin", R&B, Rock & Roll, Soul, Hip-Hop -- has been music created originally as dance music, in other words, for people's immediate visceral pleasure.

What I admired about Mattin's approach was its willingness to inject politics directly into the "avant-garde" -- often in an intentionally direct and even didactic way -- precisely because it undermined the pretensions of avant-garde music as some sublime realm. In the Introduction to Mattin's book, there's a quotation from Frederic Jameson about how the logic of the "avant-garde" basically mimics the logic of capitalist commodity-production: increasingly rapid and constant turnover of newer, better, more "improved", more "innovative".

So as a conscious strategy to undermine the intellectual pretensions of the avant-garde, I think Mattin's interventions were noble. The only problem is, "avant-garde" music itself no longer subscribes to the naive idea about its own supposed resistance to assimilation or co-optation as held by Adorno and co, or later figures like Cardew. Instead, the contemporary avant-garde audience listens to music for the same reason that Hip-Hop or Pop fans listen to music: because they dig the sounds. You can then debate the merits of injecting political content into the aesthetic realm, but ultimately, I think the effect is about the same as if you broke into the DJ booth at a club and started delivering a sermon in favor of Occupy Wall Street. It would be an unwelcome intrusion that will only alienate people you might otherwise reach. Actually, this comparison isn't so good, because Mattin himself was a performer, and I think performers reserve the right to express themselves however they want.

I don't think an "opiate for the masses" metaphor is outdated.

I fucking hate this phrase, it's one of the most obnoxious out-of-context misquotations of Marx ever.

When Marx writes about religion as the "opium of the masses", he does so sympathetically in terms of saying it's the only thing they can turn to in an otherwise hopeless situation ("heart of a heartless world", etc.) and that the task of socialists is not to tear down people's illusions, but rather to change the social conditions that make those illusions necessary.

but this brings us back to my historical question of how experimental music transformed itself from a critique of cultural opiums into a bona fide drug itself.

Because intellectuals love to overestimate the actual importance of their pursuits.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go practice the changes to "Autumn Leaves".

[mynameissally]

Instead, the contemporary avant-garde audience listens to music for the same reason that Hip-Hop or Pop fans listen to music: because they dig the sounds. You can then debate the merits of injecting political content into the aesthetic realm, but ultimately, I think the effect is about the same as if you broke into the DJ booth at a club and started delivering a sermon in favor of Occupy Wall Street.

Im on my phone now, and hope to respond to you in a little more detail tomorrow. But the above is a very concise and on-topic response to the first quesion i asked in this thread, and although i think people in bith "camps" might take offense to it, its nice to see it in writing. I feel like this thread in the context of IHm is exactly like your dj occupy metaphor. However im still curious, historically, how the experimental music venue transformed itself into this club that you describe

[RFKorp]

However im still curious, historically, how the experimental music venue transformed itself into this club that you describe

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.

[jliat]

You spec realist sorts love a straw man don't you?!
No, I didn't mean duration. I meant time. Just a couple of the non-subjective qualities of time lost in standard deviation are ordering and relative proximity of events.

I'm not a speculative realist. I'm more a dogmatic metaphysician… http://www.jliat.com/ha/index.html … and I duly note the strawmen in After finitude.
That and his bad logic – poor understanding of set theory and probability – or perhaps his miss-use?
Aside from that – allowing Meillassoux his colleationist – his arche fossil argument doesn’t work – in time. He assumes the events which created the universe were un-observed – which presents his correlationist with a problem. But for some reason he seems not to know – or deliberately avoid the fact that these events ARE being observed as they happen NOW. The images and events of the distant stars we see now- as in laymen's terms as they once where – but this is not a fossil record – but the actual light of the event. Just as I watch someone across the street – a eye witness to the event as it happens.

Here's something else with Standard Dev - try applying some fairly gentle compression to the Mozart - ie not so it distorts, just to bring up the base volume and see what happens to it on your graph. Try reducing the volume of The Rita and see what happens to it. Bear in mind the listener has a volume knob at their control. Just by changing the volume of the files I can give you a completely different graph.

I've got no problem with people doing objective analysis of music using mathematics - I work crunching data for a living and I've spent a fair bit of time applying similar methods to music. I just think if you're going to draw conclusions from that kind of thing you ought to understand your tools and use them appropriately.

But this is a massive detour in an otherwise interesting thread.

Once again I feel like I'm being told off back in school. So here is something else – try reducing the volume to zero. Are you saying that using effects processors can make a signal more noisey. Hate to break the news– but hell - well yea! We all know this.

But as I said the graph wasn’t that serious – the nice line which puts noise of the rita with natural noise was interesting. What was more interesting was the general reaction of horror at the idea that it might be an indication. I mean human diseases are complex and varied – how on earth can measuring ones body temperature be any diagnosis…! I can prove this is nonsense by putting one sick person in a cold store for an hour or so….

And being philosophic – when you say "drawing conclusions" – that's not quite the same as plotting a graph. 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…

[timdrage]

Re-reading that amazing crazy thread crashed my browser, that's harsh.

Anyway re: all my posts there -

[Seth]

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…

That doesn't seem surprising. My working definition of music is that it exists in a person's response to sound. So you'll get all results along the continuum, from someone seeing God in a mountain to someone who sees fractal geometry in the shape of a fern leaf.

Being perused with flaming torches and pitchforks... uncomfortable, pretty odd, but at least they're interested, right? Unless you mean 'pursued.' I dunno dude. If you see them as religious, maybe they see you as a bit of a Dawk?

[jliat]

although a little bit of a detour, some of Hayao's questions for jliat have popped into my head whenever i've come across his work. I find the argument for noise/signal without data that you (jliat) present here compelling, and it's compelling in the writings on your site, but realistically does something like HNW contain less signification than, say, a 10KHz sine wave?

I don't think I can or have answered this. English like Music (makes sign of the cross – raises eyes to heaven) may contain signification. But we know without a key we cannot decode this. Worse if its true that signs are arbitrary – then there cant be 'anything in the text'. So its how we read and listen then? So we can interpret language – music in many different ways. One man's Stockhausen is Sir Thomas Beetcham's dog shit.

My working assumption is meaning then is just brute force applied to something random…. If you don’t get it – YOU GET IT. And the rest as they say was the rise of Frank Sinatra – superstar…

Well – but if I deliberately type this – it does have a fixed meaning. That’s one thought – and then maybe not as fixed. Is meaning an illusion – a useful illusion. I like the idea that listening today peoples ears are more open! I like its simple wrongness…

I can imagine – but I think its probably established – that the idea of there being a unified consciousness is an illusion also. I think Derrida's SEC is brilliant on this matter.

So maybe [we] really do live in some hyper chaos in which patterns can be drawn….. or draw themselves…

As for Vomir et al. It doesn’t matter if they get it or not – as I wrote elsewhere – a car crash can be deliberate or accidental. That’s noise. But you can't accidentally MAKE a car – which is analogous to music.

The "Two experiments" is down as it is the Tacet article.

[timdrage]

As for Vomir et al. It doesn’t matter if they get it or not – as I wrote elsewhere – a car crash can be deliberate or accidental. That’s noise. But you can't accidentally MAKE a car – which is analogous to music.

I like the first part but not sure about the second, it seems really easy to accidentally make music. For example 'noise' artists seem to do it all the time when trying to make 'noise' using musical instruments/hardware/software not wrongly enough.

[jliat]

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…

That doesn't seem surprising. My working definition of music is that it exists in a person's response to sound. So you'll get all results along the continuum, from someone seeing God in a mountain to someone who sees fractal geometry in the shape of a fern leaf.

Being perused with flaming torches and pitchforks... uncomfortable, pretty odd, but at least they're interested, right? Unless you mean 'pursued.' I dunno dude. If you see them as religious, maybe they see you as a bit of a Dawk?

Thanks for correcting the typo. Pursued then… but I don’t think calling someone a Dawk is the same as pointing out they appear to believe in something supernatural.

And I don’t think your working definition does much work. 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?

[jliat]

As for Vomir et al. It doesn’t matter if they get it or not – as I wrote elsewhere – a car crash can be deliberate or accidental. That’s noise. But you can't accidentally MAKE a car – which is analogous to music.

I like the first part but not sure about the second, it seems really easy to accidentally make music. For example 'noise' artists seem to do it all the time when trying to make 'noise' using musical instruments/hardware/software not wrongly enough.

Good point Tim. My tendency for whatever the word is – over egg the metaphor?

Just deleted stuff about accidentally writing Hamlet…

First thought was to agree – but then these "noise artists" – they haven’t the stupidity or bottle to crash the car. Scared of the consequences or just conditioned to drive on the right side of the road…

[timdrage]

haha quite