can Jason Lescalleet change the world?

[lukaz]

while fb and twitter's reasons are all true now this goes way beyond and many people parted before they totally exploded. in fact i don't know where most of the people here lives but the fact is that sadly IHM have became in last years (talking about 5 year period let's say) a dirty word (or a thing to mock and joke about) among a lot the musicians and artists which are mostly discussed here (and NO- occasional criticism of their work is not the reason)... outside image of it is the one of really closed (and minded) and agressive communitiy w a lot of bullies around and of highly 'conservative' positions ... while i don't agree totally w this personally there is a lot of truth in it which makes me sad, since it was (and sometimes still is) one of my fav places in this internet world ... as Simon wrote great had stick around after the normal 'warm meeting' at trhe start. Luckily it wasn't one that is not from english speaking country- probably he would get much worse ... but hey this are i guess endless debates here w zero efficiency so i guess it is better if this topic sticks to it's subject

[jon abbey]

I'm well aware, and I believe that would hold true for any online discussion forum, no matter how open or closed it seemed to be or actually was. musicians love to talk shit over drinks in a pub, they dislike when anyone else does that in a public way, especially (god forbid) non-musicians. what people object to (whether they know it or not) is the idea of an online discussion forum entirely, not the way it's been executed at IHM (because if that was really what people objected to, there would be a better forum or more people would attempt to make this one better).

[jliat]

I don't think you're actually trying your best, some proofreading would be welcome for starters.

I'm sorry that you think I'm not trying my best. I do proof read – even so mistakes happen. You choose to not begin sentences with capital letters – but I would not be so patronizing as to criticize your poor syntax, as its more likely some cool use of syntax/ style which is 'individual'?

And if music has boundaries – that’s the point – with "keep out" signs. And "no trespassing." If music has boundaries then its unlike art, which doesn’t. Hence Mattin's recourse to squatting?

now you're putting words in my mouth, I disagree strongly that there are "keep out" or "no trespassing" signs around music as a whole. boundaries just mean that something is not all-encompassing, there don't have to be armed guards at the outskirts (while I agree that there are for some subsets of "music").

I'm not putting words into your mouth – I'm saying that if you have boundaries then you have borders. You have people inside and outside. I'm not making you say this – I'm saying it follows. And now my point. If there is some argument for equality in politics – in humanity – then there will be no exclusions. No borders. And in art radical moves have challenged the idea of borders – be they good/bad, or benign. Artist / Audience. And if given this one backs off from removing the borders – then that *might* be considered a reactionary move.

and again, no one is stopping or inhibiting Mattin or you or whoever from doing whatever you want to do. I'm only making the very obvious point that there if there isn't an attempt to contain a "musical" component, it leaves the realm of music. do you not agree with that? I'm pretty sure you do, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not quite sure I can parse some of the above. But what is wrong with dissolving the boundaries between music and everything else? Might not the idea of music be exclusive – and run counter to the emancipation of humanity? Especially the kind of privildged music of the avant garde.

I'm not advocating this – but offering it as an argument. Or why music seems locked into its product. I mentioned Seth's book in that regard.

It seems that 'musician' almost has the same idea re boundaries as 'aristocrat' – but I must be wrong. Again I know this might be very annoying – and I've no wish to – but look at this expression " the realm of music"… how can such a "realm" exist? How could one transgress its borders?

[jon abbey]

'm sorry that you think I'm not trying my best. I do proof read – even so mistakes happen. You choose to not begin sentences with capital letters – but I would not be so patronizing as to criticize your poor syntax, as its more likely some cool use of syntax/ style which is 'individual'?

actually mudd and myself have been posting here like this for ten years and even before that when we were on other boards, neither of us believe in the necessity of a capital letter to start a sentence. I personally find it aesthetically ugly and unnecessary, I can't speak for him.

"Im not putting words into your mouth – I'm saying that if you have boundaries then you have borders. "

yes, although not in a geopolitical sense, nothing that hard and fast.

"You have people inside and outside."

no. there are pieces of work that are inside, outside, straddle the line, people can move back and forth as they like.

" I'm not making you say this – I'm saying it follows."

and I just explained how to me it doesn't.

" But what is wrong with dissolving the boundaries between music and everything else?"

nothing, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I think "dissolving the boundaries between music and everything else" is fantastic and probably the future of music, Taku Unami specifically is working to great effect in this area right now, both live and on record. my issue isn't with dissolving boundaries, it's with leaving music behind altogether. again, there is nothing wrong with this, but it is then no longer music and shouldn't be expected to necessarily interest music fans.

[jliat]

"musicians love to talk shit over drinks in a pub, they dislike when anyone else does that in a public way, especially (god forbid) non-musicians."

I know this was a joke – well I guess – but I cant help but see it as very much the "them" and "us" about it.

Substitute " non-musicians" for some ethnic group for instance. But the usual defence of racist / sexist jokes is no longer allowed. "That we are only joking. – I mean some of my best friends are non-musicians"

Being a "non-musician" – I find such comments offensive.

I cant help think that many will think I'm not being serious or I'm being stupid. As if considering oneself as a musician made one special. Men only bars, whites only seats… yes these are bad – but its got nothing to do with music. (think about that please) For if it had – then certain musicians would have IMO problems. Again lets push the analogy – so you don’t mind Taku challenging the boundaries as long as music fans can stay in their segregated clubs… hmmmm? (C flat)

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

outside image of IHM is the one of really closed (and minded) and agressive communitiy w a lot of bullies around

I'm well aware

if we agree on that, let's try to look forward, not play the blame game, do something about it, try to step outside our own perspectives once in a while and be welcoming to new people.

I mean, we surely all have different ways of expressing ourselves, we have different ages and mother tongues, and we come from different backgrounds, but I'm sure everybody in this thread means well - so let's focus on that, instead of typography or syntax.

the alternative would be sad, since this site is such a good place for information and discussion about all sorts of stuff, and facebook, twitter or a new blog can't and won't replace what's been build over the years, for one because those discussions on FB an twitter aren't open to all, and don't archive well.

[jon abbey]

"musicians love to talk shit over drinks in a pub, they dislike when anyone else does that in a public way, especially (god forbid) non-musicians."

I know this was a joke – well I guess – but I cant help but see it as very much the "them" and "us" about it.

Substitute " non-musicians" for some ethnic group for instance. But the usual defence of racist / sexist jokes is no longer allowed. "That we are only joking. – I mean some of my best friends are non-musicians"

Being a "non-musician" – I find such comments offensive.

I cant help think that many will think I'm not being serious or I'm being stupid. As if considering oneself as a musician made one special. Men only bars, whites only seats… yes these are bad – but its got nothing to do with music. (think about that please) For if it had – then certain musicians would have IMO problems. Again lets push the analogy – so you don’t mind Taku challenging the boundaries as long as music fans can stay in their segregated clubs… hmmmm? (C flat)

ok, with all due respect, you are wildly twisting everything I say into things I don't even come close to meaning, and I'm done trying to explain myself to you because it doesn't seem to be doing any good, either you don't hear or you have no interest in understanding. I don't know what orthodoxy you think I'm championing, but hopefully my track record with Erstwhile pokes holes in whatever reductionist argument you want to pigeonhole me in, and if it doesn't, I will continue to try in the future to do so.

again, my own definitions and boundaries of music are irrelevant here, the point is solely that there are boundaries (even if they are different for everyone), which again, I don't think you disagree with. I am not sure why this is a controversial point.

edit: maybe you think I'm a musician? I'm not and never have been, I'm a fanatical fan/listener who eventually became a producer (in 1998) and have always stayed away from any attempts to get me to make music myself (Mattin asked me repeatedly for a few years to make a record as an artist for his label, but I said no).

[jliat]

I'm aware of your label and the work produced. And I guess my welcome here is almost if not worn out. Well did I feel welcomed? Anyway- I do have an interest- otherwise I wouldn’t bother posting.

The orthodoxy you are championing is that of "avant garde" music. Yes?

I guess I was questioning boundaries per-se. And a music board is not the right place.

Its not that I think you are a musician or not – its that these distinctions are made.

[jon abbey]

The orthodoxy you are championing is that of "avant garde" music. Yes?

no, I don't think so.

[jliat]

The orthodoxy you are championing is that of "avant garde" music. Yes?

no, I don't think so.

"electroacoustic improv"?

But such music appears under the banner of Avant Garde music
Though why you dislike the term - what of experimental?

But -

Free improvisation
Stylistic origins Free jazz
Avant-garde jazz
...

"What do we remember about Cornelius Cardew? That he was a brilliant avant-garde composer who pioneered free improvisation "


"After a long phase of experimental and avant-garde work, which inscribed itself in our hearts and still grounds any musical activity"

Thats from your label?
?

[lukaz]

check Richard's review of Casa Corp by Kaplan/Kurzmann/Carrasco ... i think that's why this discussion is important ...

http://www.thewatchfulear.com/?p=8237

[lukaz]

'Honestly its like sitting in the garden early one wintry morning admiring how the frost highlights a beautiful, intricate spider’s web, only for a copy of the Socialist Worker to blow over the fence and rip right through it. Its nice to be reminded of the good fight every so often. But not now. Not here. I was enjoying that album.'

especially this it says a lot. I on the contrary think i need to be cut out from my aesthetic state of mind- right here, right now! not necessairly by a copy of Socialist Worker (comparing it to red flag doesn't really stand ...) ...

[jliat]

"The rest of the album though, is really enjoyable."

huh? like opium?

[grisha]

oh no, someone is enjoying listening to music!

this is fucking awful. i don't even understand what this thread is about anymore.

[jliat]

oh no, someone is enjoying listening to music!

this is fucking awful. i don't even understand what this thread is about anymore.

Its not awful – its good. Enjoying music is fine – but this thread I thought was about if music could in someway change things. Well sometimes when presented with something new – which is challenging – its not enjoyable- as it puts one outside of one's comfort zone. Hence all the swearing above?

But please – that’s not normally the point of music. But – I'd argue – it *can* challenge one's conceptions – and this is often unpleasant.

Now lets all tune in to SAD F.M.

[mynameissally]

re the above few posts (before my morning caffeine):

there's a link to richard's review a 40 posts back (not that anyone said much about it). To reiterate, I think that richard's unfavorable attitude toward the overt political content is an attitude that everyone in this discussion would probably share (correct me if I'm wrong). It's corny, it's instrumentalizing, it's preaching to the choir, etc. But like JLIAT I'm suspicious of pleasure/enjoyment as the most desirable form of engagement with a work of experimental/avant-garde art... for very basic reasons that found their written origins in critical theory a hundred years ago. I don't think an "opiate for the masses" metaphor is outdated. But, of course, we all have our opiums, and I have no problem whatsoever with people using some cultural products to enjoy themselves. If EAI is one of those products (I really am hesitant to say that it is...), that's totally fine, 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.

[Wombatz]

I guess I was questioning boundaries per-se.

You're aware you're using completely cliché artspeak here? But as in all the press releases and programmatic notes that demand a questioning of boundaries, you are the one trying to build orthodoxies and ascribe them to others, though luckily that's just a rhetorical gesture and the practioners themselves most often have other problems to grapple with.

What I don't like about Richard's review is the question what the inclusion of The Red Flag might hope to achieve? I'd see such ideological pragmatism as a chief evil of these times. Maybe it just needed out, or he doesn't want to play for anybody who can't take it?

Whether it's making music as a political practice or political referents in music, I guess in most cases success would depend upon the artist successfully offering an aesthetic (in their persona or their work) that would enable others to feel cool/comfortable/whatever within the world view expressed ...

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

But, of course, we all have our opiums, and I have no problem whatsoever with people using some cultural products to enjoy themselves. If EAI is one of those products (I really am hesitant to say that it is...), that's totally fine, 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.

EAI is definitely a drug for me. Black metal and death metal are too. Some well made pop music can be too. As can Bach, Schubert, Mahler, Monk and lots of others. Obviously.

I'm particularly drawn to EAI and metal (the more 'extreme' genres and the stuff I listen to most nowadays) partly because they broaden the taste buds and, more importantly, simply offer a more extreme "drug experience" than most mainstream music.

I don't think I was ever interested in/drawn to them them because they form a critique of other opiums. And I'm pretty sure experimental music doesn't always intend to do so btw.

[jliat]

I guess I was questioning boundaries per-se.

You're aware you're using completely cliché artspeak here? But as in all the press releases and programmatic notes that demand a questioning of boundaries, you are the one trying to build orthodoxies and ascribe them to others, though luckily that's just a rhetorical gesture and the practioners themselves most often have other problems to grapple with.

It's so helpful to be told what one is doing. (That previous statement is ironic BTW)
OK – I apologize and withdraw it – what I really wanted to say is "that there are no boundaries and there is no such thing as music" but I was being over polite and reluctant to scare the children.

I admit to wanting to find a doxa, despite it being bad for one. Actually I think I have found one but that is another matter. A matter of Praxis.

[mynameissally]

At a tangent, and a reason I haven’t posted here before, (and perhaps my last!) is that any "radicalism" seems inhibited by 'music'. That is musicians as artists seem wedded (in a hierarchical inferiority) to "music". That is whatever they think – 'music' will be the result in the last instance. Thus they are a priori reactionaries. I notice he word 'ideology' – well one definition is that of acceptance of the given state of things. And I think its very prevalent amongst 'musicians'. Whereas say in the plastic arts – an artist might move from painting to sculpture through to performance, installations, film, photography, conceptual work and found objects. Musicians make 'music'.

this is very, very interesting to me. I'm compelled because this is an answer to my general question that I haven't really seen before, and deterred because as soon as I read "in the last instance" I know that there is an implied philosophical discourse that I haven't read (i.e. determination? I've seen the phrase crop up in ray brassier's writings). I hope you can unpack things a little further.

I don't really understand why (with regards to your argument) within the plastic arts there is an interdisciplinary fluidity, yet music is bound to such and such conditions. i.e. why is sculpture not bound to the traditional elements of sculpture, why have visual artists become interested in sound over the past 50 years and, generally, not vice versa? The answer that I have, and that will most lilkely appear in my paper, is that musicians over the past 50 years have creatively misread Cage, ignoring his interest in theater and multidisciplinarity of the art experience, in favor of the vague spiritualism of his "sounds-as-sounds" ideology. The so-called Cagean-Schaefferian "sound-in-itself" that we see trendy postmodern critiques of here and there. Whereas in the plastic arts, the discourse in the 70's was shaped by rosalind krauss, whose "expanded field" implies an interdisciplinarity, rather, neccessitates a leap beyond the borders of sculpture. I wonder if Krauss was interested in music, and not sculpture, I would be on a sculpture forum right now. Indeed Seth's book had a tremendous influence on my thinking.

I'm wondering what you make of all this. It seems you might see something fundamental about "music", 60s/70s/80s discourses aside, that makes it uniquely problematic.

I don't think I was ever interested in/drawn to them them because they form a critique of other opiums. And I'm pretty sure experimental music doesn't always intend to do so btw.

Of course. I'd like to believe that it does/has always intended to do so, becauses that's how I got into it.. Maybe that's the kid in me.