Criticism & Sound Art / Experimental Music

[flies]

Communication has definitely improved, but "experimental" music at large has globally diminished its overall artistic level, despite the continuing brilliance shown by those gifted individuals who emerge from the stagnant waters of self-professed "artistry" and corporate "criticism". The reason being the same: too many people who were doing something else until yesterday, and now have found an easy way to make some money and get their much needed doses of ego gratification. What was once "avantgarde/experimental" is now, quite often, just a pretext for posing and "belonging to a faction against another faction". And if one's willing to speak his/her mind, it's very probable that you're gonna get in trouble (no more promos, people cutting you out of their "channels"). Luckily I'm a lone wolf, and can just smile while observing all of this human sadness leaking even into something that should be a means for improving ourselves.

what is he talking about? what person has gotten in trouble for speaking her mind? What "something else" were people doing until "yesterday"? the last sentence is particularly damning. If Ricci can be a "lone wolf", then what gives him the right to accuse everyone else of being a self-serving asshole? Of course there are self-serving assholes in the world. The internet provides a platform for them just as it provides a platform for everyone else.

Of course - once there was a different, deeper consciousness in most people. Now quick money and quick fame is all that counts, with rare exceptions.

back when men were men...

if someone could name for me the "'journalists'" who "go around acting like the omniscient Popes of avantgarde and jazz" I would be much obliged.

It is now very common that organizers of concerts, sound technicians, journalists, etc. suddenly, at some point become artists in an instant.

i am obviously out of the loop because i have no idea what these two are going on about. please name for me such a person. The phrase "in an instant" basically goes to say that anybody who does any of those paramusical activities should never deign to try their hand at actually making art. My sense is that these organizers etc very often get into their field because they have an abiding interest in music, so "in an instant" could hardly be further from the truth. I guess what Pedro is getting at is that since they're already connected, they can begin to move product "in an instant" as opposed to an artist who must toil out of obscurity? ?????

[Hal McGee]

What about a video blog in which the reviewer talks about the recording, shows the artwork and packaging, and plays pertinent extracts from the release to illustrate the points in his review?

I'd be tuning in.....

Thanks for those words, Massimo.

I am seriously considering the possibility of hosting such a video blog, on which I will review tapes and CDs of experimental, electronic, noise, improvisation, electroacoustic and homemade music. I do have extensive experience in podcasting, having hosted the 17-part Homemade Alien Music podcast a few years ago:
http://www.halmcgee.com/homemadealienmusicpodcasts.html

It seems like a good idea, because to my knowledge nobody else is doing a review blog in video format. I think that people would enjoy seeing the artwork and experiencing the music along with me in a 'real-life' home listening and viewing experience.

[flies]

The value -as flies says above- also comes from comparing notes with what these folks (and others) have to say about a disc. It's like years ago I would discuss the new Led Zep or Can disc with my friends at school. It's a communication thing albeit (unfortunately) online and mostly one way.

This seems to be Richard's main point - that the main value of reviews requires comparison among reviews since no reviewer's view is authoritative. I of course agree. Likewise, knowing a reviewer's body of work puts each review in context.

[Charon]

I am seriously considering the possibility of hosting such a video blog,

I think it's a fantastic idea, Hal. It's certainly not like anything anyone else is doing in this area of music, and it would provide a fresh new angle on things.

[jon abbey]

trying to avoid posting here, but...

It is now very common that organizers of concerts, sound technicians, journalists, etc. suddenly, at some point become artists in an instant.

i am obviously out of the loop because i have no idea what these two are going on about. please name for me such a person.

well, one that comes to mind is the Angelica festival organizer in Bologna, Massimo Simonini (sp?), who after arranging the MIMEO/Tilbury set insisted that he and a few other Italians be allowed to play a set with them at the end of the performance.

I don't understand why no one has called out Richard P for this part of his comments:

nobody’s opinion is of any more value than anyone else’s. You cannot train yourself to respond to music “better” than anyone else, and nobody understands the music better than anyone else, assuming all have listened as well as they can.

this is wishful thinking at best, thoroughly misguided at worst, and especially amusing coming from someone whose previous blog was named 'Learning to Listen'. it's been especially revelatory for me hearing/reading feedback on 'motubachii', something directly connected to this topic. maybe Richard feels that he hasn't become a better listener in the last decade, but one most certainly can train themselves to be a better listener than they were previously.

as for how that compares to other people, maybe sports is a good analogy. I can watch a Yankees game and understand the subtleties of what's going on better than virtually anyone else doing so, including the announcers, because of the time I've put in along these lines. however, if I was watching football (soccer) with Richard P, he'd be much more insightful than myself as to what was happening and even more so if he knew the specific players involved. like many things in life, it's a combination of innate talent and hard work, not sure why anyone would argue differently, as it just seems like common sense to me.

when I first saw Keith Rowe in 1996 (the AMM set that's the third disc of Laminal), it was pretty much totally lost on me, but having seen him 100+ times since then, listened to his music for hundreds of hours, and talking to him countless times, I now understand his music much better than before, and much better than most other listeners. on the other hand, pre-1950 classical music I remain almost entirely clueless about.

[Ricci]

What person has gotten in trouble for speaking her mind?

Myself, though in this case it would have to be "his" mind. I was not jailed, though. Someone stopped sending promos, or emailed unpleasant comments - even "names" couldn't resist doing that - after certain reviews I wrote.

What "something else" were people doing until "yesterday"?

Another line of work. I know several specimens, not only in music.

What gives him the right to accuse everyone else of being a self-serving asshole?

This is what you're trying to put in my mouth. I only talked about the nature of a part of these people, but I'm perfectly aware that there are great characters out there, many of which I'm in friendly relationship with. With some of them I regularly exchange personal experiences, impressions and histories about self-serving assholes, too. You see, these things happen - I am not dreaming them.

[flies]

thanks for the replies. being a listener, uninvolved behind the scenes, i guess i just am not aware of this stuff.

[Ricci]

Jon: Angelica festival organizer in Bologna, Massimo Simonini (sp?), who after arranging the MIMEO/Tilbury set insisted that he and a few other Italians be allowed to play a set with them at the end of the performance.

That's an Italian classic. I don't know Simonini personally, but this kind of request is necessary for locals to add important names to their curricula. Which is also useful when they ask for financial support to the political mafias who put (our) money on the table for organizing events.

There was a label's owner, about 18 years ago, who used to write that he was a "collaborator" of important composers after having attended clinics with them. There is a famous artist - whom I'm in friendly relationship with - who told me that an Italian drone sub-label was constantly asking him to publish stuff for them. He never agreed, but the label guy kept announcing an "upcoming album by Mr.X" for months.

That's how it usually goes in this place. Not to mention what happened to Glenn Branca, who - having to perform "Hallucination City" at Rome's Auditorium with (theoretically) 100 local instrumentalists - had instead to cancel the date because no one managed to find them in due time, and when the concert was rescheduled the number of players was still not sufficient, yet they went on and did it.

[jcg]

Not to mention what happened to Glenn Branca, who - having to perform "Hallucination City" at Rome's Auditorium with (theoretically) 100 local instrumentalists - had instead to cancel the date because no one managed to find them in due time, and when the concert was rescheduled the number of players was still not sufficient, yet they went on and did it.

I didn't know that: what a shame! Though obviously one wonders why this piece was originally scheduled to be performed with such a poor planning. Quite amazing! Did Branca and/or John Myers were actually conducting these performances in Europe (I think there were others scheduled in Belgium and the UK)? Has anyone here attended any of those?

[Ricci]

Though obviously one wonders why this piece was originally scheduled to be performed with such a poor planning

Italians do it better, as they say in the trade. As I told earlier, what's important is putting a name on a program or a curriculum. People forget this kind of depressing stuff quickly on these shores.

Myers conducted, Branca attended (and definitely wasn't satisfied at the end). Basically he spent the whole concert time walking around the hall, bent in corners to catch some resonance he hoped to hear. I loved it anyway, it was awesome. But I understand that it was probably meant to be better. Hey - Rome is the place where they sent Frank Zappa playing at the local slaughterhouse in 1982, after all...

[washline]

But what I really wonder is whether any of this stuff is even criticism.

It isn't really. It's mostly evaluation since real criticism also necessarily includes analysis.

[washline]

nobody’s opinion is of any more value than anyone else’s. You cannot train yourself to respond to music “better” than anyone else, and nobody understands the music better than anyone else, assuming all have listened as well as they can.

this is wishful thinking at best, thoroughly misguided at worst, and especially amusing coming from someone whose previous blog was named 'Learning to Listen'.

Opinions may or may not be of more "value," but one thing for certain is that some opinions are certainly more interesting than others.

[will]

Dumb as David Keenan's recent writing on guitar-centered improvisation was, the form of writing at which he failed is more worthwhile than the way most contemporary sound art / experimental music is described in print. I'd rather see someone put a few thousand well thought out words about a clutch of releases with a central argument than tell me what sounds are made. "Free improv sucks because guitars are for rock music which is about dongs" is not a clever thing to think, but it was interesting to see the pursuit of the idea through the writing.

[negative potential]

yeah, Keenan's point was goofy, but he was at least making a point, and not writing a press release.

I've stated this before, but my favorite critic is Felix Klopotek, precisely because his work unites the different strands of what makes criticism vital; not just writing about music, but situating it within a context. Even when he's writing about stuff that I don't care about (like Jim O'Rourke or Post-Rock), I still like to read what he has to say, which I think is a quality of a good critic.

Unfortunately there's not much by him in English; maybe I should remedy that by putting a few translations on my blog. Or finally finish translating that piece about Cardew and AMM that I gave up on eons ago

[cdeupree]

It's mostly evaluation since real criticism also necessarily includes analysis.

Frye considers criticism to be the whole work of scholarship and taste concerned with literature, and I don't think it's any great leap to apply the same criteria to music. Simon Frith, former record reviewer at Rolling Stone whose resume also includes professorships in music, film and media, seems to consider them interchangeable in his article Going critical: writing about recordings: "Guiding consumers is what record reviewing has always been about. That is what record criticism is for." Perhaps reviews are the front line in criticism, which one could see as a continuum with reviews at one end and book-length studies at the other, with overview articles and entries in Wire primers among the points in between.

What exactly is this vaunted analysis? What would you analyze? How would you guide a student toward a piece of music suitable for analysis? If a student was undissuadably interested in drone music, for example, why would you guide him or her to, say, Eliane Radigue rather than some schmuck with one release, whose only external notice was at the tail end of Vital Weekly? I would propose that it's the entire body of reviews and articles that reflects and augments Radigue's renown, not to mention her creative longevity, so that the accumulated body of knowledge around her work provides the ground from which some enterprising author will write a more definitive history of her place in contemporary music. Reception theory is a growing part of musicological studies, and reviews certainly form a part of that reception.

And even as far as analysis of the musical object itself, the tools are fairly sparse compared with classical music analysis, which relies so heavily on the score and various compositional theories (tonality, serialism, etc). Other than Schaeffer and Smalley, who are the analytical theorists who would guide your student in their analytic endeavors? How would you tell her to analyze the latest offerings from Eleh, or Lescalleet?

[washline]

That's a very difficult batch of questions, Caleb, and I'm not sure I can begin to answer them. Since I don't really teach music, I'm not in a position to guide any students about it, and given the reactions to the music I've lectured about infrequently, there doesn't seem to be much interest. So I'll leave aside those otherwise interesting questions.

I guess what I would like to see more of in music criticism is what we've seen in literary and cultural criticism in the past century as well as in aesthetic and art criticism. You mentioned Northrop Frye, the principle figure of New Criticism, which dominated literature departments from the 50s to the 70s. New Criticism was focused on the interior of the work, at its tensions, inconsistencies, contradictions, internal to the text itself. Influences and events happening outside the work were out of bounds. From the 60s and 70s, social criticism became more prevalent, including feminism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism, and it was assumed that events and circumstances outside the work were needed to interpret the work. The intricacies interior to the work were set aside. Structuralist approaches, including narratology, semiotics, and stylistics, were also in play from the late sixties, and these once again drew critical attention to the internal aspects of the work, to metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, index etc. Later, this vocabulary was in turn used to read externalities of literary works, to wider cultural events and experiences, including even the television news. They became powerful tools of interpretation. By the eighties and predominance of New Historicism, after and concurrent with deconstruction, attention turned to world outside the literary text. Instead of using history and biography to understand literary works, literary works themselves became symptoms of historical paradigms and biographical phenomena. Instead of using the social, biographical, and historical to read and interpret literary works, the inverse became true: literary works were used to read the world outside the parameters of the literary text itself. You can probably see what this kind of reading did to the predominance of the great romantic artwork of an earlier history. In the evaluative register, critics ordained great artists and writers; canons were created; educational paradigms formed. New works were measured against the aesthetic yield of the greats. When found lacking, they were dismissed. As the analytic register came to dominate, evaluative measures were seen as symptoms of deeper ideological affiliations, often and usually unconscious to those holding them. Canons were undermined; the gendered and racially marginalized moved toward the center; programs and paradigms were dislocated, opening up additional avenues for investigation.

That's just a quick overview of what took place in literary criticism. A similar trajectory could be explored in art criticism starting with Clive Bell (the early Clive Bell--art as significant form, not the Clive Bell of The Wire) and moving forward to Barthes, Gombrich, Foucault's reading of Magritte, Derrida on painting, and Deleuze's writings on cinema. What could a sophisticated type of music criticism look like if it followed in the matter of the literary and artistic approaches of the past century? Perhaps, something like the analytics of Foucault's reading of Magritte in This Is Not a Pipe could serve as a useful example. It's not an exercise in evaluating aesthetic quality, which offers nothing new. It's an exercise in analyzing all of the interpretive possibilities of the work and making those explicit. It might mean looking at what a musical work or musician/composer "does" rather than simply addressing how "good" it is. Deleuze and Guattari's analysis of the synthesizer in A Thousand Plateaus is a good example of this kind of interpretation. Mattin's crew in Noise and Capitalism sometimes does a good job in this area as well. I see Mattin as aiming in this direction with a rather tendentious emphasis on social criticism--seeing recordings as coextensive with capital process. I don't think Mattin has yet the sophisticated intellectual tools to carry out his project, but I applaud the general direction even though I think he sometimes ends up in a rather bland, accusatory kind of situationism, save for his rather humorous performance with Keith Rowe. Adorno was obviously one of the first to point in this direction, but his distrust of all things in popular culture made him a rather depressing forerunner. Paul Hegarthy does some nice analysis in this vein in his book Noise/Music.

Obviously, many don't have the patience or interest in engaging in this kind of criticism and would prefer to enjoy works or not based on judgment and evaluation. The same goes for those who read literature or view artworks. But simply evaluating aesthetic quality is very long and tired engagement with cultural materials. We have more sophisticated tools today for thinking about these works, for seeing how they change the sonic environment, transform their sonic prehistory, and engage and interact with the world outside the work of which it is always implicated. Humans are programmed by their history to judge and evaluate, and that's not going to stop any time soon. However, there's no reason that this should be the only option available for criticism,or that the command for evaluation should always take precedence over interpretation.

I'll stop there for now, and I might try to flesh some of this out a bit more later when I finish up my semester soon. Or maybe someone else will take up the mantle and flesh it all out for me.

[flies]

Visual art and literature are both more clearly representative than music. The content of such work is therefore easier to relate to the world at large as compare with music. I imagine that there's a large body of work surrounding the use of sampling in music for this reason.

[washline]

In the 20th century, visual art became nonrepresentative, and the body of criticism that emerged from that development reflects it. Fictions were also produced that undermined immersion or that made indeterminate the ontological level of the story, or that had unreliable narrators. There are parallels in all the arts regarding the growing predominance of abstraction in the 20th century.

[Jesse]

Washline, syncretist.

[washline]

That's all I've ever been, Jesse. Never an original thought in my brain--only synthesis.