From: Peiman Khosravi (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 20 2009 - 10:30:31 PDT
On 20 Oct 2009, at 17:22, Tony Conrad wrote:
> Hi Peiman-----
> Unfortunately you only dig yourself in deeper. You even use an
> example of discursive universalizing to claim you don't do that;
> then you actually claim to be making "an attempt to subjectively
> the perception and conception of musical form" as a way of trying to
> state that your aim is not, as I asserted, the "mensuration of
> physical and physiological variables."
You have not explained why this is" discursive universalizing".
"physical and physiological variables" are not by definition
perceptually relevant to the listening experience. So there is a
difference between measuring physical variable and exploring aspects
of musical perception and expectation.
> Next you privilege your
> knowledge of "acousmatic music" by saying that I must not be an
> insider on this topic. If you wish to claim superior knowledge of
> this pigeon hole of modernist composition, that's fine with me. I am
> not unaware of new music composition in this vein, which is
> practiced at my university too, though personally I prefer noise
> music, with which in turn you may be less familiar.
I did not claim superior knowledge, I simply stated that if for you
spectromorphological analysis is an attempt to "“rationalize” cultural
reception by using (what I think of as Helmholzian) mensuration of
physical and physiological
variables. " then you have misunderstood the concept and/or are not
familiar with it. It is not in anyway related to post-war modernist
idealism of Stockhausen, which was an attempt to universalize, as was
serialism and the use of crude "scientific" models or the use of
chance for that matter (John Cage).
Since you have mentioned Schaeffer, here is a quote from him. From the
introduction to Michel Chion's ‘Guide des objets sonores’.
Should I mention here so much evidence denied? That a harmonic sound
be “dominant” in a group of sounds? That a fixed sound will always be
heard differently from
a sliding sound (because of two different ways the ear has of
Klangfarbenmelodie is a snare, a delusion at least as long as it hopes
to outdo other more
classical methods of calibration? Now, all these ideas, which are
linked with universal
tradition, are the opposite of the fashions which have held sway for
more than half a century.
Musical fashion has naïvely associated itself with politics, and with
scientism; it adopts
egalitarian, permutational ideas which come from simplistic
inspiration. Musicians have to be
very naïve to believe that science teaches the permutation of
egalitarian elements, and that
chance determines its creations. You would think that a sub-culture
had taken hold of Art
(because this does not apply just to music) in order to slap the worn-
out label of Chance and
Necessity on to it.
Indeed, when cleverly manipulated, these two terms can sometimes be
key to a number of things we don’t know. Far from being the key to
true knowledge, they are
catch-alls for when theory fails or practice falters. Science is also
and principally the will to
power, prediction and challenging the possible. Art, by contrast, was
also man’s attempt to
situate himself, to develop through self-expression, at the same time
determinism. Oddly, fashion is blowing the other way, and has promised
instruments, deus ex machina to help us undertake ridiculous journeys.
I agree that the continuation of this discussion is irrelevant to
Frameworks and so rest my case.
Well my Anthology Of Brakhage has finaly arived in the post, and I am
better off watching it!
On 20 Oct 2009, at 17:32, Tony Conrad wrote:
> Hi Marilyn------
> I am happy to be rude, where it comes to what I discern as
> blustering conservatism (including "experts") in cultural circles.
> If "rude" is a problem for you, stay clear of Brakhage! I remember
> when he said..........
> On Tue 10/20/09 7:58 AM , marilyn brakhage email suppressed sent:
>> It is unfortunate that you received such a rude response to your
>> enquiry. But whatever else he may be and whatever fame he may have
>> (and of course he's entitled to his opinions), I am not aware of Tony
>> Conrad as being "an expert" on Brakhage.
>> I neglected to mention earlier that you might want to check out the
>> Brakhage section on Fred Camper's website ( www.fredcamper.com
>> ) -- a great resource that will link you to a lot of good
>> On 20-Oct-09, at 4:18 AM, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
>>> If you feel that my approach is misinformed or
>> misguided then as an > expert it is your responsibility/duty to
>> me, guide me or at > the very worst let me learn it the hard
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <(address suppressed)
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.