We So SyFy

With the completely huge and wide-ranging topics covered in Sound Unbound there can easily be a lack of organization to a discussion about the text--which is likely the way that the writers would have expected it (or, instead, as a string of separate conversations, which is likely what this will be, that will combine to make this other thing, which is both our class and some other text/file/thing/?//).

Before I get into questions, I want to draw your attention to an assertion from the book's editor that will set up my next two questions: Miller writers, "We live in an era where quotation and sampling operate on such a deep level that the archaelogy of what can be called 'knowledge' floats in a murky realm between the real and the unreal" (11).

So thinking of that quote, what do we think of Doctorow's argument in favor of keeping technology going--the anti-Metallica approach--that "crippling" this technological change "to save someone's outmoded busienss model is a crime against humanity"? Other references to this issue from other writers (even Lethem's kind plea not to pirate his texts for awhile, but to remix away) all seem to feel similarly.
So yeah, what do we think? The question has come up in class before, about intellectual property, and copyright, but with this book's bold assertion that copyright laws are misused and damaging to future art.

If we continue on a similar thread, to move to Lethem's essay on plagiarism (which he pretends to plagiarize, but then attributes sources--kinda cute, but really takes the plagiarism out of the picture. Why not have said, "Ya know what? I stole half of this essay. Eat it."?), is there a necessity to quote and borrow, and a "delight" as he suggests (43)?
I definitely think there is, and yet often when I'm writing, I'll think of an idea, and then suddenly panic when I realize it's terribly similar to something I'd see before--or worse, something I see after that turns out to have been done before. If this is just crytomnesia, and something natural, and something I support fully, why do I dread my influences still? Do the other artists here do the same thing--painstakingly try not to repeat, even if the greatest artists in history borrow and steal themselves?

Jumping forward a bit, Ken Jordan and Paul Miller cover some issues about audio composition software. We have an assignment in this class that could easily involve some of this. They liken parts of the process to building out of Legos with sound. In my experience recording with Garage Band, this is a pretty accurate assessment. Similar to the arguments made about Cage (and Cage's responses), this makes music production awfully easy. I think of one of my favorite electronic musicians, Four Tet, and it sounds really "GarageBandish"--which seems like a bad thing.
So I have two videos to sort of get us thinking about this issue:
First is a video of a song from a guy who claims to not be able to play either the piano or the drums, but was edited to appear that he can. The video, in this case, just adds a bit of intrigue, the sound is recorded simulatenously, so in effect, this editing would work just as well without it. This is clearly awesome (sorry to be leading), but something's still unsettling about it.

Amateur - Lasse Gjertsen - watch more funny videos

And this next video is of a Tenori-On. This is an instrument that really emphasizes the maker as the listener too, as Jordan and Miller suggest that music is moving towards. As you watch this, you can probably see that playing this could easily lead to letting yourself be the listener and producer at the same time. Aside from the fact that I want to buy one of these immediately (and am pretty sure I'm going to), does this take away from skill in programming? In a demo video of the instrument, Four Tet notes that you can sound pretty good on it without any practice.


What do we make of Goldsmith's "uncreativity"?
This essay is, as far as I can see, a lie. It's clearly creative. You mention that idea to just about any artist and I imagine most would say "Hm... weird" and BAM, it's creative and interesting. The act might be painful, and the result might not be something I'd be particularly interested in reading--but it's creative. It's fresh, it's the opposite of what he claims he wanted. Sorry Goldsmith.

Finally, and this isn't a question (though I do want to talk about Oliveros's improvisatory school), but reading about Kurzweil's cybernetic ideas was really exciting. I've got a 76 weighted key giant purple Kurzweil keyboard in my room, and it's been a treasure for years, and I never knew the company's founder had such bizarre and cool things to say.

But if we're out of time, and want to talk more about computers making sounds, this video can spark some conversation related to Oliveros as well.

Bicycle Built for Two Thousand from Aaron on Vimeo.

Okay, that's all, let's get talking and sound making.