In both readings, “questioning of individuality in the creative situation” in which “the creative act results from, absorbs, and re-forms individual opinion” occurred. Both readings seemed to disavow the common concept of a sole individual creating a work. Instead, the readings promoted music and art that became commonly understood (because this actually increases not decreases its excitement factor), appeared everywhere (“for music to achieve…familiarity, the implications of its styles, its habits, its mannerisms, its tricks, its customary devices, its statistically most frequent occurrences…must be familiar and recognized by everyone”), and involved everyone (not just one creator but many, not just the artist who records the tape but the person who listens to or manipulates the tape). I find it interesting that both articles seem to advocate that the strongest sound art/music is that which is all-inclusive. I find myself questioning if all art should be like this—the art of people—or if this characteristic is best to remain unique in the sound world.
I really loved this line from the Brian Eno article: "Music, until about 1900, was an event that was perceived in a particular situation, and that disappeared when it was finished." I also liked how Eno pointed out the irony of jazz becoming popular as a recorded medium. As someone who spent much of my high school years going to concerts and picking up whatever music I could, I've thought about the differences between the experience of the recording and of the live performance. I don't agree with Gould's assertion that the concert has become obsolete, because I think the sheer experience of being overwhelmed with sound, "real" sound, gives a (in my opinion) more fulfilling experience than hearing it recorded. But the ability to record has brought up new developments in music. I think about shows I've been to were the performer will have a laptop present or play on loop. They allow for interesting effects, but I think it takes awake from the awe of having the sound produced organically.
These are two very different thoughts, by two very different musicians. But why me, the regurgitator of Obvious thoughts? Should difference not simply be understood through the comprehension of individuality? But these two, are from very different backgrounds. A classically trained pianist and performer, and a studio based musician, most notable for his experimentation and expansion of what the mass culture considers "music". It is interesting to read them back to back this way, especially with regards to what I perceive as being two different conceptions of 'authorship' or essentially the importance of the artist or musician. Gould seemed to put emphasis (in the wake of recording technology) on the lessening of the role of composer or conductor, individual musicians, or simply 'authorship'. Whereas Brian Eno (whose career of music production was under the name 'Brian Eno') seems to believe in the artist or composer as the significant cause to the effect of music. Love it or hate it, technology IS GOING TO RULE YOU. :) :) :) :) :)
Music is such a commodity these days that it's hard to think of it as something that can only exist in a certain place at a certain time. I think the Eno article is especially interesting because it considers the impact that recording has made on the music industry, not just in a way where the performance can be relived, but also as a way where the performance aspect of the piece can be manipulated. Eno embraces this form of manipulation and performance. He embraces the unknown, the improvisation, the ability to create and not exactly know what the finished piece will be.
Gould, on the other hand, seems less enthused with modern music. He states that it can become self-indulgent, with the ability for authorship to get lost in creation. He sees the function of music in this "electronic age" to as utilitarian as language. But I do like the point he brings up that cliche and simple language does not make us dislike literature. Instead, this makes us appreciate literature even more than we had before. This over saturation with music serves the same function: we can disregard most music as noise when we hear it, but when we here something great, it makes us appreciate it that much more.
It's interesting that Gould and Eno could derive such different understandings of the differences between electronic recording and acoustic performance. Gould clearly sees the process of recording and editing as an incredibly more complex (and difficult?) process than Eno sees it, and thus regards the individual composer as less responsible for the end product than he or she would be in acoustic production, because of the involvement of others working on the project. He sees this loss of individual identity in art as good thing, as it equates to loss of ego and biased judgments based on the artist's previos work.
Eno, on the other hand seems to have a fundamentally different view of sound recording. He claims that the individual composer is empowered by their access to technology, rather than stunted by it. And to him, this is a good thing; art should be about pure personal expression.
Personally, I find myself identifying more with Gould's argument than with Eno's. The idea the artist as celebrity can be a dangerous contamination of the way the actual art is marketed and understood, which makes the "pre-Renaissance" model so attractive.
In Gould's argument, I particularly enjoyed the premise that structured sound is not only limited to 'professionals' anymore, and that the individual artist has little importance in its creation. I believe that the more any sort of self-expression strays from the self, the truer and more open it becomes. When less importance is placed upon the 'artist', then the more importance is placed upon the actual product. Artists are always looking for ways to get their ego stroked, and really it limits the type of work being put out.
Eno brought up the point about since sound can be pre-recorded, it may be used as more of a means of creation instead of an end. Sitting down in a studio with sounds as raw material will lead to vastly different pieces than sitting down in a studio with sound being the end result. The possibilities to what can be produced are opening up, and it can only get more exciting.
What stuck out to me the most were the passages between 127 and 128 about the shift in the ephemerality of music. At first music had magic because it was ephemeral in nature and could only be experienced once in the exact moment place and time that it was performed and held all magic in its temporality. After the invention of recording, music which would have lost some of its magic because it could be re-experienced instead gained a new level of it because the ephemeral became the essence of the music. Subtlety is now sewn in and new discoveries are made each and every time you listen to certain recordings. The magic now lies within the ability to revisit. There is also something really fantastic about being able to listen to an improvisation as exampled with Jazz several times. -Heather
When Gould talks about the artist, stating that there is a need for someone "to provide an identification for artist and producer in a society where duplication is everywhere and where identity in the sense of information about the authors means less and less," it brought up a topic that has been involved in many of my discussions lately. I have been trying to figure out whether, in the medium of sound, specifically, the artist's role is important or not. Does it matter that the artist is the one who recorded and edited the things which can sometimes seem like they are just unimportant background noises when their only involvement is just that: recording and editing? I see the importance and level of skill necessary for the editing process, but is it just a matter of having the technology and programs and knowledge of how to use it readily at your fingertips. When he goes on to talk about how literature is not discredited at all just because people use the "language in which they happen to be written." This intrigued me because it is a somehow related argument that disproves my skepticism about sound/noise art. Also exploring this same subject, Eno states that "being able to listen again and again to a performance, to become familiar with details you most certainly had missed the first time through, and to become very fond of details that weren't intended by the composer or the musicians." which, to me, is exactly how I think of a sculpture or a painting or any other form of what is accepted as ART.
In both readings, “questioning of individuality in the creative situation” in which “the creative act results from, absorbs, and re-forms individual opinion” occurred. Both readings seemed to disavow the common concept of a sole individual creating a work. Instead, the readings promoted music and art that became commonly understood (because this actually increases not decreases its excitement factor), appeared everywhere (“for music to achieve…familiarity, the implications of its styles, its habits, its mannerisms, its tricks, its customary devices, its statistically most frequent occurrences…must be familiar and recognized by everyone”), and involved everyone (not just one creator but many, not just the artist who records the tape but the person who listens to or manipulates the tape).
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that both articles seem to advocate that the strongest sound art/music is that which is all-inclusive. I find myself questioning if all art should be like this—the art of people—or if this characteristic is best to remain unique in the sound world.
Tiffany Shelly
I really loved this line from the Brian Eno article: "Music, until about 1900, was an event that was perceived in a particular situation, and that disappeared when it was finished." I also liked how Eno pointed out the irony of jazz becoming popular as a recorded medium. As someone who spent much of my high school years going to concerts and picking up whatever music I could, I've thought about the differences between the experience of the recording and of the live performance. I don't agree with Gould's assertion that the concert has become obsolete, because I think the sheer experience of being overwhelmed with sound, "real" sound, gives a (in my opinion) more fulfilling experience than hearing it recorded. But the ability to record has brought up new developments in music. I think about shows I've been to were the performer will have a laptop present or play on loop. They allow for interesting effects, but I think it takes awake from the awe of having the sound produced organically.
ReplyDeleteTom DiNardo
These are two very different thoughts, by two very different musicians. But why me, the regurgitator of Obvious thoughts? Should difference not simply be understood through the comprehension of individuality? But these two, are from very different backgrounds. A classically trained pianist and performer, and a studio based musician, most notable for his experimentation and expansion of what the mass culture considers "music". It is interesting to read them back to back this way, especially with regards to what I perceive as being two different conceptions of 'authorship' or essentially the importance of the artist or musician. Gould seemed to put emphasis (in the wake of recording technology) on the lessening of the role of composer or conductor, individual musicians, or simply 'authorship'. Whereas Brian Eno (whose career of music production was under the name 'Brian Eno') seems to believe in the artist or composer as the significant cause to the effect of music. Love it or hate it, technology IS GOING TO RULE YOU. :) :) :) :) :)
ReplyDeletePHLADKY
Music is such a commodity these days that it's hard to think of it as something that can only exist in a certain place at a certain time. I think the Eno article is especially interesting because it considers the impact that recording has made on the music industry, not just in a way where the performance can be relived, but also as a way where the performance aspect of the piece can be manipulated. Eno embraces this form of manipulation and performance. He embraces the unknown, the improvisation, the ability to create and not exactly know what the finished piece will
ReplyDeletebe.
Gould, on the other hand, seems less enthused with modern music. He states that it can become self-indulgent, with the ability for authorship to get lost in creation. He sees the function of music in this "electronic age" to as utilitarian as language. But I do like the point he brings up that cliche and simple language does not make us dislike literature. Instead, this makes us appreciate literature even more than we had before. This over saturation with music serves the same function: we can disregard most music as noise when we hear it, but when we here something great, it makes us appreciate it that much more.
-Caitlyn Howell
It's interesting that Gould and Eno could derive such different understandings of the differences between electronic recording and acoustic performance. Gould clearly sees the process of recording and editing as an incredibly more complex (and difficult?) process than Eno sees it, and thus regards the individual composer as less responsible for the end product than he or she would be in acoustic production, because of the involvement of others working on the project. He sees this loss of individual identity in art as good thing, as it equates to loss of ego and biased judgments based on the artist's previos work.
ReplyDeleteEno, on the other hand seems to have a fundamentally different view of sound recording. He claims that the individual composer is empowered by their access to technology, rather than stunted by it. And to him, this is a good thing; art should be about pure personal expression.
Personally, I find myself identifying more with Gould's argument than with Eno's. The idea the artist as celebrity can be a dangerous contamination of the way the actual art is marketed and understood, which makes the "pre-Renaissance" model so attractive.
Kierstin Siegl
In Gould's argument, I particularly enjoyed the premise that structured sound is not only limited to 'professionals' anymore, and that the individual artist has little importance in its creation. I believe that the more any sort of self-expression strays from the self, the truer and more open it becomes. When less importance is placed upon the 'artist', then the more importance is placed upon the actual product. Artists are always looking for ways to get their ego stroked, and really it limits the type of work being put out.
ReplyDeleteEno brought up the point about since sound can be pre-recorded, it may be used as more of a means of creation instead of an end. Sitting down in a studio with sounds as raw material will lead to vastly different pieces than sitting down in a studio with sound being the end result. The possibilities to what can be produced are opening up, and it can only get more exciting.
-Brianna Didyoung
What stuck out to me the most were the passages between 127 and 128 about the shift in the ephemerality of music. At first music had magic because it was ephemeral in nature and could only be experienced once in the exact moment place and time that it was performed and held all magic in its temporality. After the invention of recording, music which would have lost some of its magic because it could be re-experienced instead gained a new level of it because the ephemeral became the essence of the music. Subtlety is now sewn in and new discoveries are made each and every time you listen to certain recordings. The magic now lies within the ability to revisit. There is also something really fantastic about being able to listen to an improvisation as exampled with Jazz several times.
ReplyDelete-Heather
When Gould talks about the artist, stating that there is a need for someone "to provide an identification for artist and producer in a society where duplication is everywhere and where identity in the sense of information about the authors means less and less," it brought up a topic that has been involved in many of my discussions lately. I have been trying to figure out whether, in the medium of sound, specifically, the artist's role is important or not. Does it matter that the artist is the one who recorded and edited the things which can sometimes seem like they are just unimportant background noises when their only involvement is just that: recording and editing? I see the importance and level of skill necessary for the editing process, but is it just a matter of having the technology and programs and knowledge of how to use it readily at your fingertips. When he goes on to talk about how literature is not discredited at all just because people use the "language in which they happen to be written." This intrigued me because it is a somehow related argument that disproves my skepticism about sound/noise art.
ReplyDeleteAlso exploring this same subject, Eno states that "being able to listen again and again to a performance, to become familiar with details you most certainly had missed the first time through, and to become very fond of details that weren't intended by the composer or the musicians." which, to me, is exactly how I think of a sculpture or a painting or any other form of what is accepted as ART.
Steph Hedges.