I found it pretty interesting the differing views of creation that both articles presented. As far as Bourroughs' view, he believes sound to be a more experimental approach, with repeating actions and cutting tapes to infinity until something is produced/found. He seems to find meaning in the actual action of reproducing and remixing sound itself instead of being fixed on the final product. The path there is the art form, not the ending point.
Stockhausen and Richard James ('Aphex Twin') have vastly differing opinions on sound as well. Stockhausen, of the older breed, believed that James' music needed to be touched-up and perfected, whereas James was perfectly content with the experimental value of his work. Both artists were focused on the end product of their work, and differed from Borroughs in that they wanted their works to be literal and intentional.
The almost infinite power of sound—both articles both directly and indirectly note this concept but in slightly different ways. While one article claims “music is the product of the highest human intelligence” and speaks of how music and sound should forgo all trickery and complications in order to be straight forward in communications, the other article brings up an entirely different aspect of sound’s power. “What we see,” the article states, “is determined to a large extent by what we hear.” The article goes on to talk about how sound, by not being straight forward, can be used to deceive or trick the viewer into believing that they are seeing something that they are not. So which power of sound proves to be greater: its power of straightforward communication or its power of deception? This, I think, is something that depends strictly upon the creator of sound, and the intention behind their creation.
First of all, I hate Burroughs and everything he has ever done... ever.
Secondly, the Stocky vs. Techy article is extremely pretentious, and somewhat difficult to read. I enjoyed the response from Aphex Twin more than I did the writings by Stockhausen. I think Stockhausen has a great point about music being "a product of the highest human intelligence" and should not "be used as a drug", but he's too wrapped up in criticizing the works of others and discussing how great his own work is to acknowledge the fact that most people do use music as a drug, in one way or another. Most people listen to music in order to achieve a specific mental state, or a specific emotion, which is exactly what drugs do as well. I don't know of very many people (unless they are musicians) who listen to music to appreciate the intelligence that went into making it.
The poetic reading was something i thought i would enjoy. but mostly enjoyed great disdain for it. The stocky vs. techy was very boring, and although i usually take great pride in enjoying all things boring, such as waiting in line for movies i never intend to watch, riding a bus until you arrive at the point at which I had boarded said bus, or just boring things in general, this article bored me in a way that was more than harmless boredom, it simply annoyed me. Long live plain/simple music for music, the simple vibes reminiscent of mom's heartbeat. Enough with the high status, intelligentsia produced conceptual composition bullshit. I'm happy it is dead.
I thought that the Stockhausen vs. Technocrats article was the most interesting as of this point because it actually intrigued me with their descriptions (technically, their petty bickering and self-defenses) to further investigate the artists works. I spent a lot of time reading their opinions and then listening to the pieces which they named, trying to formulate my own opinions of how the pieces worked in the sense of how the artist claimed they would. For example, when Stockhausen shamelessly plugged his own pieces, claiming that they were basically the best to learn from. His piece "Gesang der Junglinge" is interesting and unsettling, but when Aphex Twin was analyzing it, I saw his points of it being a piece which is "abstract, random patterns you can't dance to," but it made me question if and WHY that would ever be important. Stockhausen's piece "Hymnen" is terrifying. I wanted to stop listening to it a few seconds in, but I just COULDN'T. there are moments of peace and things that intrigue me into trying to understand where to orient myself, but then, when least expected (because of its unpredictable and purposefully randomized interjections), I would be again forced into an unsettling and stomach-churning feeling. Again, I see the points made by Scanner, saying that repetition "can draw the listener and lull you into a false sense of security," but as he goes on to say that "when it gets too abstract, I find it very difficult to digest over a long period of time," I tend to disagree. There is another point made that most pieces are 4-10 minutes long and that is all the listener cares to invest in the piece, but I can see "Hymnen," specifically, being looped or extended and my body actually reacting to how much I hate it, but can't stop being interested in seeing where it's trying to take me. Steph Hedges.
Oh, and I forgot Burroughs. This article blew my mind, I think. I read it a long time ago (around the time when it was assigned, HA), but I think that not responding to it until now has given me better things to say. His style of writing is intense. I found it baffling that he was capable of communicating such an abstract way of thinking about a sound piece by only using an abstract way of writing. It pointed out the dependencies of the way we analyze text combined with the way we comprehend sounds. I found myself picturing some of his examples (i.e. the three tape recorder effect with recording two sides of an argument with two separate recording devices and then playing them back to record onto a third device) and actually being motivated to experiment with this technique (as well as others he proposes). I found myself thinking about these things for weeks--not as a sound piece because he gives such a developed formula that it would be just acting out what he thought of--but in the context of my life. The ideas he proposes are more of these experimental ways of delving into the extremely personal emotions of one as an individual. In this respect, I don't believe that these pieces, if actualized today, would be successful except to the person that they are specifically recorded for, but to that person, it would be a meditative study of what is not recognizable without this abstract fragmentation. Billy Burrz rulez. Steph Hedges.
I found it pretty interesting the differing views of creation that both articles presented. As far as Bourroughs' view, he believes sound to be a more experimental approach, with repeating actions and cutting tapes to infinity until something is produced/found. He seems to find meaning in the actual action of reproducing and remixing sound itself instead of being fixed on the final product. The path there is the art form, not the ending point.
ReplyDeleteStockhausen and Richard James ('Aphex Twin') have vastly differing opinions on sound as well. Stockhausen, of the older breed, believed that James' music needed to be touched-up and perfected, whereas James was perfectly content with the experimental value of his work. Both artists were focused on the end product of their work, and differed from Borroughs in that they wanted their works to be literal and intentional.
:Brianna Didyoung
The almost infinite power of sound—both articles both directly and indirectly note this concept but in slightly different ways. While one article claims “music is the product of the highest human intelligence” and speaks of how music and sound should forgo all trickery and complications in order to be straight forward in communications, the other article brings up an entirely different aspect of sound’s power. “What we see,” the article states, “is determined to a large extent by what we hear.” The article goes on to talk about how sound, by not being straight forward, can be used to deceive or trick the viewer into believing that they are seeing something that they are not. So which power of sound proves to be greater: its power of straightforward communication or its power of deception? This, I think, is something that depends strictly upon the creator of sound, and the intention behind their creation.
ReplyDelete--Tiffany
First of all, I hate Burroughs and everything he has ever done... ever.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the Stocky vs. Techy article is extremely pretentious, and somewhat difficult to read. I enjoyed the response from Aphex Twin more than I did the writings by Stockhausen. I think Stockhausen has a great point about music being "a product of the highest human intelligence" and should not "be used as a drug", but he's too wrapped up in criticizing the works of others and discussing how great his own work is to acknowledge the fact that most people do use music as a drug, in one way or another. Most people listen to music in order to achieve a specific mental state, or a specific emotion, which is exactly what drugs do as well. I don't know of very many people (unless they are musicians) who listen to music to appreciate the intelligence that went into making it.
Caitlyn
The poetic reading was something i thought i would enjoy. but mostly enjoyed great disdain for it.
ReplyDeleteThe stocky vs. techy was very boring, and although i usually take great pride in enjoying all things boring, such as waiting in line for movies i never intend to watch, riding a bus until you arrive at the point at which I had boarded said bus, or just boring things in general, this article bored me in a way that was more than harmless boredom, it simply annoyed me. Long live plain/simple music for music, the simple vibes reminiscent of mom's heartbeat. Enough with the high status, intelligentsia produced conceptual composition bullshit. I'm happy it is dead.
-PHLADKY
I thought that the Stockhausen vs. Technocrats article was the most interesting as of this point because it actually intrigued me with their descriptions (technically, their petty bickering and self-defenses) to further investigate the artists works. I spent a lot of time reading their opinions and then listening to the pieces which they named, trying to formulate my own opinions of how the pieces worked in the sense of how the artist claimed they would.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when Stockhausen shamelessly plugged his own pieces, claiming that they were basically the best to learn from. His piece "Gesang der Junglinge" is interesting and unsettling, but when Aphex Twin was analyzing it, I saw his points of it being a piece which is "abstract, random patterns you can't dance to," but it made me question if and WHY that would ever be important.
Stockhausen's piece "Hymnen" is terrifying. I wanted to stop listening to it a few seconds in, but I just COULDN'T. there are moments of peace and things that intrigue me into trying to understand where to orient myself, but then, when least expected (because of its unpredictable and purposefully randomized interjections), I would be again forced into an unsettling and stomach-churning feeling.
Again, I see the points made by Scanner, saying that repetition "can draw the listener and lull you into a false sense of security," but as he goes on to say that "when it gets too abstract, I find it very difficult to digest over a long period of time," I tend to disagree. There is another point made that most pieces are 4-10 minutes long and that is all the listener cares to invest in the piece, but I can see "Hymnen," specifically, being looped or extended and my body actually reacting to how much I hate it, but can't stop being interested in seeing where it's trying to take me.
Steph Hedges.
Oh, and I forgot Burroughs.
ReplyDeleteThis article blew my mind, I think. I read it a long time ago (around the time when it was assigned, HA), but I think that not responding to it until now has given me better things to say.
His style of writing is intense. I found it baffling that he was capable of communicating such an abstract way of thinking about a sound piece by only using an abstract way of writing. It pointed out the dependencies of the way we analyze text combined with the way we comprehend sounds. I found myself picturing some of his examples (i.e. the three tape recorder effect with recording two sides of an argument with two separate recording devices and then playing them back to record onto a third device) and actually being motivated to experiment with this technique (as well as others he proposes). I found myself thinking about these things for weeks--not as a sound piece because he gives such a developed formula that it would be just acting out what he thought of--but in the context of my life. The ideas he proposes are more of these experimental ways of delving into the extremely personal emotions of one as an individual. In this respect, I don't believe that these pieces, if actualized today, would be successful except to the person that they are specifically recorded for, but to that person, it would be a meditative study of what is not recognizable without this abstract fragmentation. Billy Burrz rulez.
Steph Hedges.