From Ryan Richard Whitehead Sent Thu, Oct 16th 1997, 20:08
From Ryan Richard Whitehead Sent Thu, Oct 16th 1997, 20:08
(END HERE IF YOU WANT MUSIC CONTENT, THESE ARE MY RAMBLINGS. IMPORTANT AS
THEY ARE TO ME--I SPENT A HALF HOUR ON THIS AFTER ALL--TO MOST THEY WILL
SEEM A TANTRUM)
> Noise is random. Music is a (semi)ordered collection of sound.
> All this 'deconstruction' business sounds like an excuse for not being able
> to (or not bothering to learn) to mix. Beats don't necessarily have to be
> matched perfectly but if I'd payed for a DJ that's what I'd want to hear. I
> suppose if you're aware of Spooky's style then you'd know what to expect.
> Personally I think I'll steer clear of him.
noise is CHOSEN--choice is not random. if i roll some dice is it random
that a 5 shows up? well, i chose to roll the dice--i shouldn't be
surprised if i see a number hovering before me. i chose for a number to
be THERE, and sometimes a number is precisely what one needs. i've got
six choices and i can't decide . . . i really wish i had a number. ok, #5
. . . i'll pursue this with all the intensity that i have . . . i'll
sculpt it. the genius is in knowing when to roll the dice, where to
roll them, with what explicit or implicit intentions, with what
instanciation. OR MAYBE there is no GENIUS to it at all, just open
mindedness and adventure.
I'm very disheartened when i hear people say "if i payed for X then that's
what i want to hear." i know, i know, we have moods, we have preferences,
but it's a sadness beyond words when we subject our broad minds to a
black twist, to an expulsion of possibility. we lose the moments between
expectation, and oftentimes debilitate the unexpected which invades our
longed for moments. there is such a thing as CREATIVE LISTENING, CREATIVE
READING . . . marshalling the active elements of your mind at all moments
is . . . possible though not essential--therefore it is often neglected.
kafka never FINISHED a story, all is a raw immensity, a parsed phrase,
invalid's repast, material for mutatis mutandis, snake oil to grease
cognition. never finished a story . . . have you?
> I'd have thought that anybody could do this (as long as they could afford
> the hardware). It doesn't sound like anything I'd want to listen to. Sounds
> more like a visual thing than an aural thing, which is fair enough, I suppose.
What's the response of Tristan Tzara (The Dadaists), John
Cage,etc to the statement "Anyone can do this"? well, they can either say
"Yeah, so" or they could ask "But has anyone?" or they could
surreptitiously challenge "oh, really?" not that i'm a great fan of
abstract expressionism, but look at some of the BAD shit that happened
when people thought Pollack was just tossing paint. this is a point i
choose because of its connection with the beginnings of a free jazz
movement (with all the talk of JAZZ influence over the past months, why
have we never spoken of FREE JAZZ--or anyone other than Miles and Herbie
for that matter?). one of the early Ornette Coleman albums
(the shape of jazzz to come?) used a pollack painting as the cover art
(full fathom five? sorry about the speculation, i don't have it near me).
of course anyone with an orifice capable of expelling air and several
digits capable of epilleptic/brownian movement can play free jazz. or . .
. can they?
the very fact that they TRULY take what they (free jazz, abstract
turntablists, etc.,) are doing seriously--ie as more than anarchic
amusement--separates them from people who IMMEDIATELY (that is, without
the actual perceptual phenomena, the MEDIA, coming into the picture) write
them off as performers and sensationalists. it's impossible for those
people who do not take the ideas seriously to THINK of them in the same
manner. interior and exterior breaks down when one takes these ideas
seriously . . . deconstruction, cut and paste, theoretical production . .
. these are not bloodless acts because, for those who take them seriously,
they impact the flesh, each feature is canonized by contemplation, the
imagination is cindered. is it accidental that so many of these cut up
artists (from burroughs to Ground Zero with Spooky in the middle) take
GENETIC (often viral) metaphors as titles--what they produce may seem thin
and bleak, but it is a strange new flesh, and like a breath, it passeth
away and cometh not again. we make a touchless clean room by calling
these explorations heretical, we deprive ourselves of EVERYDAY raptures.
moreover, we forego the opportunity to shear the tensile link in the modes
of communication we are presented with and those we long for, we isolate
Challenges (BY ALL MEANS, LETS CONFINE EVERYTHING WHICH CONFRONTS OUR
TEPID SENSIBLITIES TO A MUSEUM, A CELL, A BARGAIN BIN, A DUSTBOWL OF
SHATTERED ASPIRATIONS, A WALLED UP SHAFT FOR ICONOCLASTS. let's become
the ideal demographic--a market sector of mildly dissatisfied consumers
with mild cases of future-shock and mild yearnings for a 98.6 degree
authenticity.), we let virgin records tell us what is New (let's avoid a
corporate whore line of thought). Perhaps it's the fact that Marklay
knows that we think of the DJ as a definition, a beat matching mindless
homogeneity addict, someone who will play Wu-tang when asked (or
compromise him/herself in some other way) perhaps it is for this reason he
tells people that he is NO DJ. Wouldn't you?
when someone says "it doesn't sound like anything i'd want to listen to"
it seems apparent that it is almost certainly not something that they
WOULD or COULD listen. i mean, listen as in penetrate, manipulate, think
through, challenge.
we are strange in forgetfulness--
These type of debates make me realize that we never learn anything, simply
call old errors by new names.
ryan whitehead