The Art of Manliness has a great tutorial on how to hug a fellow man complete with a step-by-step instructional video narrated by an authoritative-sounding (read ANY) British guy. Don’t get caught snuggling! Watch the video!
Via Huffingtonpost.
Some guy has created a massive flow chart detailing the possibilities of “The Mystery of Chimney Rock,” a classic in everybody’s favorite second-person series.
Via BoingBoing.
Apparently, Paris Hilton doesn’t understand the concept of a password. Threat Level has the hilarious call where a helpful hacker explains what passwords are, why they’re important, and how to set it up. It’s pretty hilarious and worth a listen.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/audio-helpful-h.html#more
The Washington Post ran an interesting article detailing the inner workings of Clinton’s campaign. Lots of drama. It’s long, but worth reading to the end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html
I came across this interesting article while searching through The Wire archives. Some of the entries will surprise you, as this is not strictly covering popular breakbeats. In fact, I’m not sure I saw the “Amen” groove listed at all. There are some very interesting selections from Conlon Nancarrow to Varese. There are also some surprises such as Ligeti’s Atmospheres, which is essentially arhythmic. The article dates back to 1992, but they’re still as relevant as ever.
Check out these hilarious anaphora machines:
Here’s the one for Obama.
Here’s the one for Hillary. You can even add your own to the mix.
Personal favorites:
Barack Obama skated all the way from the beach just to see you.
Barack Obama took off when he heard you weren’t coming.
Barack Obama listened to your MP3.
Barack Obama parsed your error.
Barack Obama spent the afternoon setting up your router.
And a few from Hillary’s site:
Hillary wants you to add the Zombies application
Hillary killed HD-DVD
Hillary is a Duke fan
Hillary timed out
Hillary asked when your baby is due
Rogowski’s series of inside-out stuffed animals is wickedly subversive. Check out his online gallery.
Thanks to Ze Frank’s blog for the advance tip!
iLounge has the scoop. Check out all the frame-by-frame comparisons.
Not what I would have expected. However, the NYT has a great article explaining exactly why digital downloaded films are stupid. The reason? Crippling DRM. The studios are determined to make this mode of distribution fail. Why? Because they are just too stupid to realize that the world is changing.
Daily Koz outlines the cult of obama. Hilarious.
The Obama Prayer
posted by ‘internationaljock’
Our Obama, who art in Wisconsin,
Hallowed be thy hope.
Thy victory come, with votes you’ve won,
in Iowa as you have in Kansas.
Give us this day our “Yes, we can.”
And forgive us our hopefulness,
as we forgive those who hope against us.
And lead us not into intraparty squabbling
but deliver us from those who vote against us.
For thine is the party,
and the money,
and the organization,
for ever and ever.
O-men
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/18/04016/9401/874/458820
Apparently, choking yourself (or a friend) to get a “weird dreamy feeling” is the new thing. Back when I was growing up, it was the ‘ramming your head against a brick wall to get high’ game. The times sure change. I wonder what the next generation’s games will be? Read about it!
In the photo below, two youths enjoy choking each other to get high.
This is a classic. It’s available elsewhere, but now it’s available here as well. For anyone interested in the origins, Alex Ross as already done the leg work on his popular music blog. Check it out.
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/02/you_vill_enjoy_.html
It’s refreshing to see the feminists rising above issues of gender. Crenshaw and Ensler report on the Huffington Post:
“Because we believe that feminism can be expressed by a broader range of choices than this “either/or” proposition entails, we again find ourselves compelled to say “no”–this time to a brand of feminism that betrays its inclusive and global commitments. We believe we stand in unity with many feminists who will say, “Not in Our Name” will this feminism be deployed.”
Threat Level Reports the following:
“The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 (PRO-IP), advocated by the RIAA and introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan), includes a proposal to treat the unauthorized copying of a ten-song CD compilation as ten separate acts of willful infringement, resulting in a maximum penalty of $1.5 million.”
Does the punishment fit the crime? This reminds me of the federal judge who sued his laundry service for $60k + after they lost his pants. Seems crazy right? He lost the case, but the husband and wife that ran the laundry service lost their business. This could happen.
One commenter puts it rather well:
“We should penalize EVERY ILLEGAL COPY WITH A 10 MILLION DOLLAR FINE!!! Then attach their property, put them in prison, and teach them all a lesson. Wait, if ALL the people downloading illegally are financially unable to buy a new CD, or in prison, then the Major Labels go belly up at exponential speed.”
Yikes!
Yes, you read that correct. She even beat Romney for most donations from lobbyists and special interest groups. Read about it here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik
In other news, Obama has taken zero dollars from lobbyists, although he’s received around $86k from individuals at lobbying firms. Get out and vote!
The New York State chapter of the Nation Organization for Women had this to say in regards to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama . . .
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this†one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.
“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’â€
It seems clear enough that NOW advocates blindly following *any* female candidate regardless of qualifications. Feminists should vote for the best leader - and the most sympathetic to their agenda. With many prominent feminist cultural theorists speaking out about Hillary, and her willingness to play the part of the submissive, long-suffering wife, why is NOW so upset? No demographic should vote for a candidate simply because he or she is like them. Pick the best and then let others do the same without being so whiny when others don’t agree.
This book is not what one would hope. Beyond the frequent factual mistakes (dates, chronology, plot, etc.), there is a deeper issue. Mikita Brottman claims to be helping us understand the importance of these films by showing us hidden qualities that redeem them from their exploitation roots. However, her prejudices are obvious - she is unable to engage these films as worthy of study without demonstrating that she is academically and intellectually superior.
Granted, Herschel Gordon Lewis was not a cinematic genius (although he does have a PhD in English or literature), but he wasn’t the simple-minded idiot Brottman describes him as. She ignores one of the most interesting aspects of his career: he was able to put the stamp of his personal vision on each of his films, independent of the financial forces that typically control directors and drive them to make derivative junk.
In describing the films she claims to redeem, she ends up contributing to the negative hype surrounding them by describing them as “so sick, depraved, and unwatchable that the view becomes physically ill.” Seriously - Blood Feast is nothing compared to some more contemporary films. It may have been shocking at one time, but now I seriously doubt its ability to make someone physically ill. It’s just so cheesy and unintentionally hilarious that I don’t think anyone is watching it in the way that Brottman seems to think they are. I don’t know anyone who put the DVD in, watched, and became horrified. On the other hand, I DO know many people who watched the film for its comic value. From this perspective, I believe many of her arguments are weak.
She makes a few statements that really makes one question just how many times she watched some of these films. There are plenty of mistakes in the chapter on “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, but the most disturbing is that she falls victim to the same trap that many critics succumbed to: namely, the amount of gore in the film. She describes the film as using (amongst other things), advanced special effects. This is absolutely untrue. They intentionally *avoided* gore both because it would be difficult to pass the censorship board and because they weren’t interested in exploitation. Many people learned from “Psycho” that you don’t need blood to terrify. Carpenter’s “Halloween” has almost no blood, nor does Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Tobe Hooper focused on suspense and a horrifying environment of terror rather than the cheap, visceral effect of blood and guts. From Brottman’s comments, we can see that she will never be guilty of a thorough understanding of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, as she sees fit to completely misunderstand the filmmakers intentions (probably a result of her elitist need to marginalize the director).
My final criticism is that her idea of art is much different from mine. She sees directors like Jorg Buttergeit (the Nekromantic series and Schramm) as art-house directors while seeing Gaspar Noe (Irreversible) as exploitation masters in the style of David Freidman and Herschel Gordon Lewis. Just compare “Irreversible” with “Nekromantic”: Irreversible has a real visual style, a message, and creatively explores the medium of the teleological narrative. Nekromantic is an exercise in invoking the taboo taken to pointlessly nauseating levels. And for what point? To show that necrophiliacs are people too? I’d rather deal with a serious and skillfully portrayed meditation on the base instincts of the human condition rather than watching a necrophiliac make love to a cheesy fake body.
Brottman is entitled to her opinion and if she doesn’t want to see Noe as an artistic director, that’s her right. However, it shows me that I don’t agree with her on fundamental issues and therefore, I cannot accept many of her points. There ARE some nice sections and the writing style is readable. It’s not elegant by any stretch, but it’s not as dry as some scholarly texts. If you’re a big fan of exploitation film or the so-called “low culture”, you’ll probably find some interesting ideas in this book, as I did. However, they are buried and you’ll have to make a number of allowances for Brottman’s mistakes and odd opinions. What a shame - it could have been so much better.
Universal finally got around to releasing Lynch’s “Lost Highway” on DVD! Most of you are already well aware that there was never a proper domestic release of the film. It was available from Canada in a hideous pan and scan version complete with terrible color and brightness levels that made the film difficult to watch.
Before discussing this particular DVD, I’d like to include a few comments on the film itself. There are a lot of people that will say this film makes no sense, that it’s meaningless, or even pointless. I would like to counter that by saying, the film is full of meaning, but it’s like a puzzle and you can’t expect to figure it out on one or two viewings alone. There are so many fascinating details and connections that present themselves upon subsequent viewings that I really believe it’s worth it to spend some time with “Lost Highway”.
I don’t want to give away plot information or even present some common interpretations of the film. At least 30% of the fun comes from post-viewing discussions where you and your friends attempt to make sense of the pieces. If you are just dying to get some easy answers, they’re already covered in Lynch discussion boards all around the web. I’m much more interested in helping new viewers approach the film to get the most out of it on the first viewing.
I think the first viewing should be a purely sensual experience where you can take in the atmosphere and react to the film on a gut level. It’s going to make you scratch your head, but it’s such a wild ride that I think it’s fun without even understanding everything. The second time you watch it, look for details - themes, motives, repetition - there are clues all over the place.
In interviews, Lynch admitted that he and Barry Gifford (the writer) included certain elements so that the film would *not* ever completely resolve, no matter how you put it together. Think of the blue box in “Mulholland Drive” - it’s a fantastic element that probably exists only symbolically. If you separate certain features of “Mulholland Drive”, the film eventually makes sense. The same goes for “Lost Highway” - there are real events, symbolic events, and imaginary events. A great first step is deciding in which category specific events fall.
Now onto this particular DVD release:
The rumor websites have been talking about a brand new 5.1 mix, and given Lynch’s obsession with top-quality video, I’m hoping that this will be the best “Lost Highway” release ever. However, while this DVD will probably be a big step up in terms of quality and availability, I’m disappointed that Universal didn’t do more. “Blade Runner” fans waited years for a proper DVD release, but they were eventually rewarded with a total of NINE different editions (including both HDDVD and Bluray) - why couldn’t they at very least give “Lost Highway” fans a special edition? I have the Region 2 UK double-disc edition and it’s great. The featurettes, interviews, and such are out there already, so why not include them?
The only real extra is a 10-part, multi-angle interview with Lynch. Since the Lynch interview on the Region 2 release is fairly brief, I’m guessing this is something new, recorded recently. Those familiar with Lynch know what to expect - he’s going to tell interesting stories without explaining anything in the film. I’m sure it will be very cool, but what about the extra scenes that are floating around? Universal could have done a lot more.
“Lost Highway” is such a puzzling, but engaging film. I highly recommend it to any fan of Lynch’s. It’s not the best Lynch film to start with if you haven’t seen any yet. It’s not as straightforward as “Blue Velvet” and it’s trickier than “Mulholland Drive”, but it’s got a wonderfully dark atmosphere that fills the screen with Lynchian dread. It’s an experience. Enjoy.
Since eight years as a first lady counts the same as eight years of executive, presidential experience, I say we all go to the polls and do a write-in for Laura Bush! She’s been a two-term first lady, just like Hillary. Ergo, she is just as qualified as Hillary. But, she is just now finishing up those eight years, so she has momentum already. Hillary may be ready to go “by day one”, but Laura Bush has already started! Her “day one” was seven years ago!
I’m sad to see that our country is full of such mindless morons. Lets hope Nevada doesn’t screw up what New Hampshire already did. I could defend my positions, but you might as well just read what’s in the news and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Thoroughly disgusting.
This was in a CNN story covering the democratic race -
“Pre-caucus polls in Nevada make it a close race among the three, an event spiced by a lawsuit filed by several Clinton supporters hoping to challenge the ground rules.
Their objective was to prevent several caucuses along the Las Vegas Strip, where thousands of Culinary Workers Union employees — many of them Hispanic or black — hold jobs.
The rules were approved in May, when Clinton was the overwhelming national front-runner in the race. But the union voted to endorse Obama last week, and the lawsuit followed.”
This is funny - especially after she criticized Iowa’s caucus system of disenfranchising blue-collar workers unable to take time off work to attend.
More here -
“The state teachers union, which hasn’t endorsed a candidate but whose members are among Mrs. Clinton’s core supporters, has asked a federal court to halt the casino caucuses because it gives casino workers greater voice in delegate selection. The court hasn’t yet heard the suit, but it already has created bad blood between the culinary union and the state’s elected Democrats, who have been largely quiet.
D. Taylor, the union’s secretary-treasurer, calls the suit “an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of union members,” who will be working on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. He and other Obama supporters point out that all the campaigns signed off on the plan months ago.”
Yikes
Not that Arianna Huffington is in anyway unbiased, but this is still worth a look. As the race gets dirty, it’s nice to have a record of things people are saying. You might be able to find something like this on Obama, but I haven’t seen it myself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html
I did my part in the Iowa caucuses. Now it’s up to South Carolina to get out there and vote Obama.
According to Something Weird Video, the Wizard of Gore himself is back in the director’s chair for a brand new film!
For the first time in horror film history, five bloodthirsty maniacs from the infamous splatter films of HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS team up to butcher and mutilate anyone who stands in their way! Get ready for the super-villain Battle Royale of the century with BACK IN BLOOD and H.G. LEWIS’s GRIM FAIRY TALES! These all-new feature films are based on characters created by legendary horror director Herschell Gordon Lewis, teaming up the infamous homicidal maniacs: Fuad Ramses (Blood Feast), Montag the Magnificent (Wizard of Gore), Adam Sorg (Color Me Blood Red), and Rodney/Granny Pringle (The Gruesome Twosome). They’re back from the grave - together for the first time ever in the same movie! Scheduled Release Date: 2008
Awesome!
Rogue cultural critic and postfeminist Camille Paglia has some interesting perspectives on Hillary Clinton. It’s a quick read and worth your time.
Incidentally, Steve of “Steve’s Stuff”, author of an unpopular, rarely read CRATEL blog, endorses Obama. As if anyone cared.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/
Whether you believe “Inland Empire” is a great film filled with mystery, or a meaningless assemblage of unsettling scenes, you can’t deny that it has a great soundtrack. Sound design has become so important to Lynch that all of his films since “Lost Highway” feature a constant extra-diegetic sound source of some sort. In “Lost Highway”, there were obvious musical selections separated by ominous rumblings and barely audible industrial sounds. Now in IE, the distinction between what is “music” in the traditional sense and what is ambient sound is almost totally blurred. Not all music has melody, and not all ambient sound is without melody - even if only in an abstract sense. While I’m disappointed that Angelo Badalamenti didn’t collaborate, Lynch seems to have taken on the task himself with great success.
In many ways, this is an interesting companion to the film. It appears that Lynch created lengthy selections, which he subsequently cut and arranged to work with the editing and flow of the film. Now, we’re able to hear them in their entirety, as Lynch originally conceived them. To me, it’s a fascinating window into his creative mind.
Beyond Lynch’s original material, there are some interesting selections ranging from Beck to Penderecki’s intense modernist works. The big disappointment for me was the curious omission of the music from the burlesque club scene. It was a great subversion of sleazy stripper jazz into something atonal, but still groovy.
Finally, many speculate that a lot of the film is explained in the lyrics of “Polish Poem”, and this is an easy way to hear it. There do seem to be some answers, but as is typical for Lynch, they’re clouded in vague, poetic language and end up raising more questions than they answer.
This is an excellent soundtrack. Even if you were not a fan of the film itself, the music stands on its own. It’s different from the popular “Lost Highway” soundtrack, but I think it’s equally good.
Helvetica is an interesting documentary about something that
superficially appears banal - the ubiquitous san serif font. This is a
stylish film that is actually about a lot more than typography.
The film pursues two angles. The first deals with typography directly
and is more expository in nature. It’s the ostensible topic of the
film, but the interest comes from the second angle, which deals with
issues of modernism, postmodernism, and the aesthetics of graphic
design. Yes, it’s interesting to learn about typography, but
typography is not an art per se (nor am I suggesting that the film
makes this claim). Rather, it is the manner its used that has the
potential to rise above its market-driven function and become an
artistic statement.
The film really hits its stride after about 40 minutes when the
modernism bubble bursts and we start getting a lot of resistance to
the world-wide helvetica saturation. After hearing modernist designers
extol the virtues of its clean lines and clarity, it’s nice to hear
some postmodernists begin to deconstruct its undercurrent of
conformity. By the end of the film, we’ve come back to a place where
helvetica is no longer mass market taboo and graphic designers are
free to use it, so long as they some how subvert its structure.
The best part about the film is that it really lays out the
modern/postmodern debate clearly by using something to which everyone
can relate. A comparison of modernist and postmodernist painting is
sure to leave those unfamiliar with the field of 20th century painting
confused, but by using something everyone has a lot of experience
with, the issues become increasingly clear.
I have a few issues with the film that keep me from giving it five
stars. It feels a bit long for its subject matter. There are quite a
few montage sections showing how the Helvetica typeface surrounds us
everywhere. I think most people get the picture within a few minutes.
All these montages feel a bit like filler. While it’s an engaging
topic, I’m not sure that it’s a “feature-length” topic. “Helvetica”
seemed to be a great 60-minute documentary that unfortunately ran 80
minutes.
Also, some of the interviewees are a bit fanatical about typography.
At least one individual borders on the verge of typographic fetishism.
I know the difference between enthusiasm and fetishism and this was
clearly the latter. You’ll see what I mean. I don’t mind that this guy
holds this position, but I think it weakens some of the arguments that
others make in support of the aesthetic complexity of typography.
In conclusion, I’ll say that “Helvetica” is a very nice documentary.
It’s not on the same level as, say, “Gates of Heaven” or “Shoah”, but
it’s solid. It’s definitely worth renting. I’m not sure how much
replay value is present - I don’t think I will watch it again soon,
only because it was straight-forward. It’s accessible enough to engage
individuals who don’t typically watch documentaries. It’s definitely
one you can watch with your friends.
Triadic Memories is my absolute favorite Feldman piano work and probably ranks up there with my top five Feldman works of all time (the others include his Piano and String Quartet, Rothko Chapel, King of Denmark, and Crippled Symmetry). Solo piano works so well for Feldman’s music for a number of reasons. Works such as “Why Patterns?” can sometimes sound a bit shrill if the musicians have not made good sonic choices. Anytime you have flute and orchestra bells as two thirds of an ensemble, you’re bound to risk a lot of high-frequency irritation. By contrast, the piano has a wonderful range that is never grating on the ears. (I should point out though that I do like “Why Patterns?” when it’s performed well)
I’ll comment first on the work itself and then on the interpretation.
There are some reviewers here that claim the work is “boring”. This could be for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that they’re inexperienced with 20th century modernist art music. But, I’ll give these listeners the benefit of the doubt and address these criticisms anyway. There is no perceptible form at work here. You can’t follow it as you would a sonata. There is either very little repetition or quite a lot - it’s difficult to say which. Sometimes I feel like I’ve heard a certain section before, but other times it feels through-composed. That is all to say, there are valid reasons for not enjoying Triadic Memories.
Additionally, as with all extended-length Feldman, if you don’t happen to enjoy the mood and texture of a particular work, you’re probably not going to like it. “For Philip Guston” does not appeal to me because I happen to not like the small idea that Feldman expands into a nearly four-hour work. On the other hand, I like the sounds of his second String Quartet, which is even longer.
Ultimately, I would suggest listening to Amazon’s 30 second previews. They give a very representative sampling of the work. It’s as simple as this: if you like the preview, you’re in for a treat because it’s more of the same for about 93 minutes. If you don’t think it sounds good, then you’re not going to like the work.
These are all subjective perspectives anyway. Personal taste aside, this is one of Feldman’s strongest works. It perfectly realizes his delicate, haunting aesthetic and induces the type of meditative listening experience that he typically requests of his listeners. Beyond that, he finds variety with simple ideas. The broken chords of Triadic Memories, if stacked vertically, would form more-or-less normal triads, but Feldman arranges them into major and minor seconds that destroy any chance of triadic consonance. It’s beautiful stuff, really.
Marilyn Nonken provides a terrific interpretation of this difficult work. After listening to it around ten times, I cannot find any faults or errors. Her tempo is slow, but not too slow. Most importantly, she maintains excellent rhythmic integrity. For those who have had the chance to examine the score, you know that Triadic Memories is rhythmically complex - deceptively so, I might add. Nonken is able to convey this accurately and avoids the pitfall of making the notes seem like a random cloud of pitches.
Overall, I can’t recommend this recording highly enough. The only question for Feldman fans is whether to buy the double CD or the DVD-Audio version.
Who knows!? Not even Google! Should I care? Who knows . . . I just want to work on world peace. Or, work on making the world in pieces.
Here’s why she will
Here’s why she won’t
Here’s why she might
Gennet on HuffPo raises some interesting points . . .
On average, in 2003 roughly 11 percent of all pregnant women in the US smoked during their pregnancy and in some states, the numbers soared to over 26 percent (way to go West Virginia!). Breaking down the figures, we see large differences in ethnic, economic and educational statistics . . .”
Abortion is problematic either way, but I can confidently state my opinion that any mother who refuses to give up tobacco or alcohol during her pregnancy is unbelievably selfish.
Allow me to preface this entry by saying that this is an assignment for class and of no interest to anyone not enrolled.
——————————————
For my part, finishing my project was nothing more than ‘time to stop composing and play what you have’. I came up with new material until the night before the opening. If I had another week, I’d probably have another two or three tunes to play. Sometimes a deadline is good because it lets you know when to stop. John Zorn theorizes that Schoenberg used poetry settings in so much of his music because his 12-tone system didn’t provide a clear way to know when the piece is finished and so he wrote until he ran out of words. Interesting. I guess I did that by writing until the show. I ended up with eight tunes, but even when stretched to ten minutes each, it’s still less than an hour and a half. The other thing is that since I was writing all in a short time period, a lot of the songs have a similar feel. Normally I’d spend this much time on one composition, but it would be a lot more complex. I don’t think it mattered ultimately because anyone seeing the show is probably going to hear one or two tunes tops.
The assignment was to be installed and ready by class on Wednesday, so Team USA made our way to 414 on Tuesday to set stuff up. Of course nobody was there yet, and strangely, many people didn’t show up at all. We started by covering the large windows in our back area. Keith was apparently fine with climbing the ladder a whole lot, so he did the nailing. We got our side finished pretty quickly.
After that, Tyler and Keith began installing the “disco” lights. Since we weren’t able to put nails in the wood, the engineers had to get creative. Luckily there were some wiring conduits and fixtures to hang out stuff. We experimented with strobe light placement and found that it worked best pointed at the back wall.
Keith N. was generous to let me borrow his PA system. He brought it that evening and we tested it with my laptop listening to some quasi-Arabic dance music and good ol’ Joe Satriani.
I didn’t go in on Thursday because Keith just needed to install the sensors. He ended up staying from 1:00-7:30pm. I think there were some setbacks or something because he described the installation processes and frustrating.
On Friday, I packed up my gear and went down town to get the music ready. I ended up getting it all to fit in three bags, plus a large midi keyboard, the CPU, and a monitor. Not bad. I unloaded and the made another trip to WSU to load up a table for my gear. Keith N. brought his awesome van to help me get the table down town.
It sure is easy to write when the topic isn’t thesis driven. I could crank out the descriptive crap all day long. I could crap out the descriptive crank all day long. I crank descriptive could all the crap long. Crap, I crank the descriptive day could all long. Could I crank out the long crap all day descriptive. Long crap descriptive crank I could long all day.
Installation of my sound gear was uneventful. I plugged everything in and it worked as intended. Keith’s sensors worked more-or-less as intended. In the end, they were tripped pretty frequently. We eventually decided to keep the spinning ball going the whole time to add some ambience.
The scales we backed (things we scaled back), were the number of sensors and the sound baffle. That looks like “sound waffle” - I wonder what that would look like. We didn’t construct the sound waffle for a few reasons. The walls from shift space were in bad shape. They were in such bad shape that I would have had to cut a 4-5 inches off each side and repaint. Plus, once I did that, I’d have to build a brace to keep them erect. If they could at least stand on their own, I’d have put them up. As it turned out, I played the music at a satisfying volume and didn’t get any complaints. It was nice to be able to see the whole gallery during my performances.
As I said before, our installation was uneventful. Keith’s sensors were simply a matter of plugging them into the wall - the logochip that is - he ran it off a cell phone charger so we avoided the battery issue.
I’m always amused and slightly disturbed when a celebrity takes it upon themselves to advise me on politics. When you think about it, these tend to be amongst the least educated and probably the least in touch with reality. Lets take actors as an example. If they even go to college, it’s for acting. Having gone through an arts program myself, I know that one must really seek out critical thought if so desired because most public institutions sure aren’t going to force it on you. The majority of popular entertainers have little or no college experience. Not that a college degree guarantees the ability to think critically, but it does imply academic experience, which is typically the path to knowledge and rational thought. Of course there are a few exceptions such as James Woods who studied at MIT or David Duchovny who has a masters in English lit from Yale. These are rare cases and I have yet to hear Duchovny step up and tell me who to vote for. I might consider his opinion if he did - I’m sure he’d have a good reason for it.
Musicians are another example. I have no idea why I should listen to the political views of a trio of guys that wrote “Fight for your right to party”. The Beastie Boys write some fun music, but their popularity in no way says anything about their knowledge of things other than beer, bongs, and boners. I think it’s hilarious that so many magazines mistakenly think I care what they have to say.
It’s the same with Sean Combs (aka - Puff Daddy - aka - P Diddy - aka - Diddy - aka - something else by now I’m sure). He didn’t necessarily force his opinion on me (although the “get Bush out of office” message was clear enough), but he did tell me to “Vote or Die”. It was great to see such important world figures as Mariah Carey and 50 Cent (aka - Fiddy) attempt to educate youth on the power and importance of voting.
One could argue that it’s admirable for these celebrities to use their access to a large public forum to raise awareness about certain issues. Sometimes this is probably true, but it’s not like they have the gift of discernment. They voice support for whatever they’re told to. Very few go hunting for causes to support. Tim Robins is an exception - he has a gift for showing up at every protest staged anywhere.
One excellent example of a celebrity supporting a worthless cause is Kevin Federline showing up to speak at a protest to keep the penny in circulation. He says of his appearance, “I ain’t down with the metric system, yo. That’s why I pimped so hard to get the penny back”. I doubt he had any idea the penny was in jeopardy, but I’m sure his manager thought it would be a good idea for him to have an opinion on something and this was the fastest, easiest way for him to get his opinion out there. (random digression) Interestingly, during his widely publicized divorce settlement he told a British new source that he was demanding “50 million dollars or, like 70 million pounds.” Apparently the dollar is doing rather well according to K Fed.
My point is not to rip on celebrities, KFed notwithstanding, but to point out how completely stupid it is that they have such a prominent political voice. The scary thing is, young people DO listen to their opinions when they should be listening to others. I’m not arguing that we listen to the intellectuals either. If everybody followed Chomsky’s ideology, America would be dead and we’d be in anarchy right now. The intellectuals always posit great utopian ideas, but they never work because the world is not perfect, nor is it capable of becoming perfect at any time.
One could also argue that since the 60s, art has become increasingly political as seen in the music of Bob Dylan and others. This is a whole other debate. Art is one thing - popular recording “artists” are completely different. Where Dylan may have spoken for a generation, there’s no way that Diddy is speaking for me. Same for the Dixie Chicks. Actually, same for anyone who has appeared naked on the cover of a magazine.
What we really need are some rational, critical thinkers to help us understand issues - preferably free from party politics, but I’ll take what I can get. We need a balance between accessibility and intelligence. Maybe Jon Stewart is a good example. He seems to know what he’s talking about most of the time and he’s wise enough to point out the idiots in *both* parties. In the meantime, I guess it have to do the leg work and educate ourselves. That’s actually not such a bad idea. Thinking for yourself? nah - it would never work!
As hoped, I’m starting to get a lot better making music with a lot of gear. I think the trick is having one or two elements that are unobtrusive, but can hold everything together. This gives a sense of continuity as well as providing some musical content that I don’t have to constantly worry about.
Another trick is focusing on one thing and not trying to micromanage. It’s like the first drum set situation - the little drummer has his/her first drum set with all sorts of drums and cymbals and they want to get around to all the different sounds at every opportunity. As expected, this isn’t very musical. For some reason I had to relearn this lesson over the course of a few hours.
Playing two midi keyboards at once is not actually all that difficult as long as you’re not trying to play two radically different things at once. I have it set up so one is usually a bass sound and the other is some sort of pad* or lead sound. The second midi keyboard is significantly more limited because it controls the Roland synth module. The Roland synth module is very very lame. The only usable sounds are a biting square wave, a nasty saw tooth patch, and a mellow pad-like patch. Most of the variety is going to come from Reaktor.
I’m not using the drum machine all that much right now, but Lauren plans to join me at times during the show, so I imagine she’ll put it to good use. The cool things that I’ve found to do with it include running it through the Alesis FX unit and totally overloading the Alesis until it starts freaking out and making “bad” sounds.
The Alesis is a bit tricky to control. It’s old and I’m not 100% sure that it’s functioning properly. It really only has the three controls that one would expect (In, Out, and Mix). I’m getting some interesting results by running a totally wet (meaning totally processed, as opposed to partially processed) signal at extreme output levels. I can manage the overall volume with the mixer so nobody is going to go deaf. When you overload the Alesis it does weird things in addition to the normal feedback and infinite delay effects. Random squelches and squeals are always fun. Always.
This is a sample of my short hand that helps me get things set for a particular piece. From here, I have all the settings that I need to remember. You’ll probably wonder where the notes themselves are. That’s the easy part. I don’t need to write it down.
Song 4
R:SongD.ens
MID1:Equi4
MID2:082Saw
K:PR1
AFX:84
IN:6
MIX:6
OUT:6
*a pad sound is something full and rich in texture that can go on underneath a more active melodic line. They’re typically used for chords and such.
First the music -
As I previously posted, I’ve switched from Pd to Reaktor for the majority of my sound design. This is because it offered a lot of power and flexibility in a short amount of time. Had I had maybe an extra three weeks, I would have probably been able to use Pd instead. See my previous post on Reaktor for more info and for some screen shots of the Reaktor code.
I’ve spent hours composing frameworks for improvised electronic music. The frameworks have a number of components: first comes the musical idea (what I want it to sound like and communicate), second is the tools to produce these sounds, and third is practicing using the tools so that I can adequately realize my ideas.
Reaktor has on average 30-50 controls per instrument. I don’t need to use all of them all the time, but it’s nice to control functions like filter cutoff and resonance, amplitude envelope, formant center, and usually two or three other parameters specific to the instrument. This is the classic electronic music conundrum - the interface presents many options, but they require virtuosic manipulation if real-time sound synthesis is desired.
I’ve mapped a number of important controls to midi instruments to solve some of these problems. I’m controlling Reaktor with an M-Audio Radium 61 keyboard that comes with 8 knobs and 8 sliders. I’m also using an M-Audio Oxygen 8 v2 to control a different synth module (more on that later).
Regardless, control over five+ software instruments plus mixing both within Reaktor and externally for live sound is no small task. Reaktor sounds are fed through a virtual mixer with the resulting submix sent to an external FireWire mixer. At this stage, I’m adding some hardware including an old Kawai R-50 drum machine, an Alesis MIDIVERB II effects unit, and a Roland synth module. I’ve connected the Alesis FX unit through the mixer as an auxiliary send, which enables me to apply it to any track (e.g. the Reaktor feed, the drum machine, the synth module).
I’ve posted a number of experiments on the wiki. I have one week to practice, so hopefully it will keep getting easier with more interesting results. I may hit up a few musical friends if they’re in attendance just to keep things interesting.
Now onto the other parts of the project -
Keith has six light sensors working with his logochip. He’s planning to install a black light in the middle of our area with his light sensors all around. The audience will walk between the light and the sensors and this will trigger his lighting effects. I’m not sure how they’re programmed, but he will probably have more to say on his blog.
Tyler is taking care of the construction of the walls. Our presentation needs to be dark so that our light sensing works and it needs to be closed off so that our lighting effects don’t interfere with other installations. Tyler is also still working on his infinity table.
We’ve already scaled back a couple things. I was hoping to use ultrasonic sensors instead of light sensors so that we wouldn’t have to place a light in the middle of the floor. Keith made some attempts at using an ultrasonic sensor, but opted to go with light because it was much easier. I’ve made a few adjustments as well such as the switch from Pd to Reaktor. I would also have liked to have Keith and Tyler do more with artistic lighting design. As it looks right now, the lights are simply triggered on and off by the sensors. This is a partial victory, but it’s a very simplistic type of interaction (one that almost isn’t work doing). But, it’s what they had time for. I feel like with an extra week, Keith, Tyler, and I could get together on the creative elements of the show. With the time available though, we’ve had to make sacrifices.
Overall our show won’t be a total failure, although it will be more difficult for the audience to see what we’re trying to say (hi/low art). Worst case, people think I’m the DJ for the event - a horrible, experimental DJ playing his own music that nobody wants to hear. Heck - they my not even realize that I’m making the sounds on the spot. I’ll do my best to explain that or have my team mates explain it.
Sorry that there aren’t any pictures. There’s really not much to see. It is, afterall, music . . .
Well, Sanjaya was finally voted off the island and it’s about time. No, not because he sucks - because now he is free to get started with his career.
All he needs is a wife with more money than taste, one who is already famous and carries at least a little credibility, one who is . . . Britney Spears! Hey, it worked for Kevin Federline and it can work for Sanjaya. Think about it - it’s perfect. She’s recently single with two kids to raise, she doesn’t have a promiscuous husband spending her money on a failed album, and she’s not in the news anymore. Sanjaya doesn’t need talent. He needs a record deal and fast. It could be a huge celebrity wedding with tons of media coverage, which would distract from the current headlines about death, destruction, and how oil companies are making stealing from the American people. If people get caught up in the Spears/Sanjaya wedding and his subsequent attempt at a music career, they can forget their other troubles. Common Sanjaya! Do it for America!
Success! After trying so hard to get Pd to play long samples, I finally decided to learn some Reaktor programming. Reaktor is a modular synthesis environment from Native Instruments. It’s a lot like Pd, but it’s a lot easier to make interesting software instruments. For instance, if you want an array of wave forms to choose from, you just create an oscillator bank whereas in Pd you would need to calculate all of the different waves you want to use, leaving a lot of room for error and such. It’s particularly useful for things like filters and reverb. In Pd you have to design your own filters (lots of math involved), but in Reaktor, you can just drop in what you want.
Yeah, this makes it a lot easier, but that doesn’t make the results invalid - just efficient. I’ve used Pd plenty. I know I can build most of the things in Reaktor, but it takes so long and I don’t see the point when I have a better tool available. Pd is a great learning tool and using it allowed me to jump right into Reaktor without much trouble.
Anyway, the point is, Reaktor has a multi channel “tape player” that stores audio files of any size in memory and can play them back efficiently. Pd just never offered any good way to do this easily, so I’m switching mostly to Reaktor. When I say “easily” I mean, a way that I could figure out in three weeks. I’m sure plenty of people have done similar things in Pd, but they probably have double my programming experience or more. In the end, all that matters is that it works. No extra points for doing it the hard way.
This shows Reaktor’s Tape Player
This is the top-level Reaktor code
This is some lower level code. As you can see, it’s basically connecting modules like in Pd. At its most basic, it has all the same low-level objects as Pd, but it also has a great library of ready-made stuff.
This is another review for Amazon.com under my usual nom de plume “Steward Willons”.
This is a frustrating DVD. I love Steven Schick, Roger Reynolds, contemporary music, and the work itself. The DVD itself is severely disappointing.
First the good news. Watereshed IV is a wonderful addition to the ever expanding body of multi percussion literature. As usual, Steven Schick turns in a masterful performance, clearly demonstrating why he is *the* final word in contemporary (non-keyboard) solo percussion. His performance of Watershed is amazing to watch. One interesting note: he appears to be following the score during the performance. This is highly unusual for him - I’m not sure what’s up with that. If he can memorize a 60+ minute work like John Luther Adams’s Mathematics of Resonant Bodies, I’m not sure why he’s using the score for this performance. Regardless, I can find no fault with the performance whatsoever.
I’m not as familiar with Roger Reynolds’s work having only heard a handful for his pieces. Watershed is interesting to watch, but you definitely get more out of it having the score to follow along. The scope of the 25 minute work is so large that it’s difficult to keep the ideas in mind. From looking at the score, I can see thematic material, developments, and variations, but from simply listening, it’s not nearly as clear. If you don’t have access to the score, this is will require a number of listenings before things come into focus. The good news is that it’s worth your time.
There are some interesting interviews with Reynolds, Schick and the sound engineer offering some very interesting insights not just to Watershed, but to sound spatialization and music in general. The spatialization definitely adds a lot to the work. If you don’t have a 5.1 system, headphones are the next best thing. The DVD includes a 5.1 and stereo mix, both of which sound good.
Now the bad news. The image quality is abysmal. You might think I’m exaggerating when I compare the picture to what you’d expect from Real player or Windows Media. I promise you - it looks that bad. The image is blocky, pixilated, dark, and flat. This is totally inexcusable when there are some many great looking DVDs out there. Additionally, there is an annoying “W” in the lower right hand corner for the duration of the work. W for Watershed??? I have no idea why it’s there. Just a pointless distraction.
While I can recommend the music, I can’t recommend this DVD at all. I’d be very suspicious of any Mode Records DVDs. I do know that this was their first and (if what their website claims is true) the first “art music” DVD ever produced. Maybe they have figured out how to make a decent product in the six years since this came out.
Of course, watching Steven Schick is always a treat and, as I always say, a crappy Watershed DVD is better than no Watershed DVD at all. Just make sure you know what you’re getting before you buy this.
The makers of GEM had the foresight to allow the user to deactivate the border (title and scroll bars), which is great. That still leaves the OS control bar at the top of the screen. In the off chance that anyone is reading this, here’s my workaround. I’m using a projector for this project, so I can tell my Mac that it’s a second display, as opposed to a mirrored display. This will give the projector its own desktop without a control bar.
To set this option . . .
Open System Preferences
Click the display icon
Click the “arrangement” tab
Unclick the “mirror displays” option
Easy.
I’m doing a bit of video work for J.C. Combs’ final percussion ensemble concert. He’s created a tribute to Harry Partch, one of the most prominent microtonal composers. Partch was a renegade free-thinker who broke the bonds of Western tonality and equal temperament (the common tuning practice of the West) by creating a unique 43-note scale and an array of original instruments. My task is to play some video clips from a Harry Partch documentary along with editing and a few other tasks. All the clips were preprocessed so by the time Pd is involved, it doesn’t have to do any stressful video work.
I’m used to using PDP and PiDiP, two Pd externals that are fairly decent at image-based processing of live video. They’re not so great with pre-recorded video. I may have just mentioned this in a previous blog post, but allow me to repeat how annoying it is that the software designers decided to only support some obscure Quicktime codec that is now long gone. PDP supports .avi, if I remember correctly. Huh. That’s funny. .avi is a Windows format, but PDP isn’t even ported to Windows. Who came up with that great idea?
Fortunately, GEM (Graphics Environment for Multimedia) is a much better Pd external complete with a little documentation and some tutorials. Building a video player was mostly a matter of looking through the help files, reading a couple tutorials, and putting it all together.
The first step is to download Pd-Extended. It’s got all the major Pd externals included. I’ve included my patch below, although you might as well just go through some of the help files to make your own.
As you can see from the Pd code below, everything is straightforward. The [gemwin] object creates the window and accepts a number of messages including dimensions, border on/off, cursor on/off, and rendering on/off. Make sure you send dimension and border messages before creating the window. It’s easiest to stop rendering while you’re not actively watching a video. I didn’t run into CPU problems, but you never know.
The [pix_film] object played my QT files without and problems. Just send it a message with the file name and path. You can go frame-by-frame, auto-play, and see the total number of frames in the movie. I added a gain control [pix_gain] so that I can do nice smooth fades. Finally, you supply the dimensions of the video output. It’s a little confusing because you create the GEM window, but then you also have to specify the size of the video output within the GEM window. It would be nice if GEM automatically scaled the window so that you could use an object like [rectangle 4 3] and it would keep the same aspect ratio without you having to figure out a size that’s close.
There are a few objects left over, so just ignore those. I should have just deleted them. I found GEM video playback to be very high quality, but easy on the processor. I recommend it for anyone wanting to play video in Pd.
This is not pretty, but it works. Here are the steps . . .
1 - a band opens file.aif
2 - after a 10ms second delay, readsf~ receives the bang
3 - file.aif plays
4 - after the initial bang, a 100ms delay is triggered and opens the same file.aif
5 - after the initial bang, a 56 second delay is triggered and begins playing the second instance of readsf~
6 - after the first instance of readsf~ finishes, it outputs a bang
7 - that bang is sent to a 100ms and 56 second delay and begins the cycle again
*UPDATE*
okay, so this doesn’t work with multiple audio files. Pd is unstable and crashes after a few cycles.
At Professor Harrison’s suggestion, I looked at Zexy (a Pd external) to see if it’s multi-track recorder object would be useful. I still run into the problem of having to rewind the object once it plays through the sample. The object looks interesting for multi-track recording and playback, but it’s not really any better than readsf~ for my purposes. It would be faster to simply rewind a file as opposed to re-opening it as readsf~ requires, but it’s not significant enough to forgive the following hassle . . .
The Zexy object uses the .RAW format, whatever the heck that is. I’ve never seen it before. It’s always frustrating to me that Pd always wants a screwy file format in order to work properly. Sure, it’s got a wave and aif player, but some of the objects need bizarre codecs that are long sense gone. How hard would it be to figure out something standard and stick with it?
I’m going to go with the dueling readsf~ files tomorrow. Hopefully that will behave as I intend. More on this later.
Now that we have terabyte drives, here are the next few advances to look forward to (complete with humorous names) . . .
petabyte (a quadrillion bytes)
exabyte (one quintillion bytes)
zettabyte (one sextillion bytes)
yottabyte (one septillion bytes)
xygabyte (one zillion bytes)
zyxobyte (one bazillion bytes)
OK, so I made those last two up.
According to a yahoo article, once we reach the 50T range, we can listen to a century’s worth of music non stop. When Cage wrote his 11 year organ piece, he didn’t think big enough.
Lets hope BluRay and HD-DVD are forgotten as quickly as the mid-90s Digital Compact Cassette (DCC). There’s nothing we need less than over-priced “premium” formats that offer such a small advantage over existing formats. The difference between LPs and CDs is pretty great: size, portability, longevity, price, etc. The difference between high def DVDs is . . . storage capacity??? Sure, this allows better video quality, but not *drastically* better video quality. Why should anyone start rebuilding their DVD collection just for an increase in video quality on a TV they probably can’t afford?
And don’t think for a minute that the larger storage capacity will change anything about extra features. There are still plenty of DVDs released with nothing but trailers and hilariously stupid DVD recommendations (e.g. Did you enjoy Titanic? You might also enjoy The Abyss, Evil Dead, Last Action Hero, and many other titles that happen to be from the same DVD studio!).
The worst aspect that nobody seems to be talking about is the DRM involved. If you try to play a BluRay or HD-DVD in a conventional play, it automatically downgrades its quality to “worse than broadcast”. This isn’t even about copy protection anymore - this is about forcing pointless hardware sales. What a shame. But, I would expect no less from the greedy entertainment industry.
This is an interesting piece on why HD formats have already failed.
I started doing serious work on the Pd programming for my project. The goal was to build a software sample player and live performance patch to tie everything together. As it happens, Pd is not exactly built for this.
There are two objects to read audio files: readsf~ and soundfiler~. The former streams the audio from disk while the latter writes the audio file to a table that you can then scrub through. The idea is that there are some rumbling, drone sounds that occur while the installation is at rest. As people enter the installation space, the patch begins to react and the calm, peaceful samples give way to more activity.
Anytime you’re working with audio files, you’re pretty much streaming them from, if you’ve broken your HD into volumes, the fastest part of the disk. This is crucial for uninterrupted playback. Unfortunately, readsf~ doesn’t work well with looping. Pd requires you to re-open the file each time you want to play it and then send the object a “start” message. This introduces unacceptable delay on the order of seconds (!) - may not sound like a lot, but your ear will easily pick up on millisecond delays. Mine will anyway. It’s not even that I’m getting a little zipper noise - it’s flat out dropping out for a second or two.
I experimented running two instances of readsf~ so that the second gets cued up seconds before the first finishes in hopes of moving seamlessly between the two. This works a little, but not great. It reduces the delay to a few milliseconds, but there’s still the issue of zipper noise.
One possibility is to tweak this configuration, but it’s horrible programming and needlessly complex. As a last resort, I will try sizable fade-ins and fade-outs to give me some breathing room with the overlap. It’s not a huge deal because I’m not working musically in the temporal sense. There are no beats or pulses - just atmospheric ambience. If I DID want to add beats, this will not work at all.
Soundfiler~, as I said before, writes the audio files to a table. This is great for short loops. You connect a sawtooth wave to a tabread~ (table reading) object and it continually cycles through it. You can even go backwards or scrub through the waveform. The problem with this approach is that all the sound files eventually get stored in the patch. My 60-second samples that I want to loop each need a 2.5 meg graph to hold them. Once more than two of these are present, Pd starts behaving erratically. It becomes unstable to the point that it’s unusable.
A possibility for this method is to cut my samples - maybe to one 8th the size. Then they will loop fine, but they’ll also be fairly short and anyone who stands just beyond the installation will be able to notice the same sounds repeating over and over again. I could work with randomly alternating samples so that periodically, something changes, just infrequently enough to not be easily detectable.
So, I’ve got one object that’s good for streaming, but bad for looping; and one object that’s great for looping, but bad for reading. As the guy trying to remove soap scum from his shower with a tooth brush always says, “there’s got to be a better way!”
I’m disappointed that I’ve used the term “deconstruction” in the title of my TASD project (see below) and *nobody* has attempted to call me on it! It’s one of the most controversial moves I could possibly make. The term is thrown around with such ease and misunderstanding that surely someone is skeptical enough to at least question that I know what I’m talking about.
It’s actually a bit scary because perhaps nobody has questioned my usage because they (shudder) feel that have a sufficient understanding of what deconstruction is. Yikes. I’m not saying that I’m the only person who actually understands it, but I can be fairly confident that after a few years of study and hundreds of pages of reading, I have a good handle on it. I am also in a position to observe countless misuses, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of Derrida’s ideas.
I hope if someone is reading this, they’ll speak up to find out if I’m full of it or not. I welcome debate as I’m sure we each have our own view of postmodernism even if they’re essentially the same.
I’m risking pedantry here, but I feel strongly that we have an amazing amount of great words in the English language and we either a) use the same ones over and over as if the words “cool” and “sucks were the only words we ever learned; or b) use words with very specific meanings casually and generally without necessary understanding. Lets put an end to this sloppy practice and hold each other accountable for our language.
The central idea at work is the mixture of “high” art and “low” art. Where a traditional modernist position focuses exclusively on high art, a postmodern position is open to the use of so-called low art techniques. The term “disco” is being used to refer to a dance club environment and should not be confused with 70s disco music such as “YMCA” and other classics. A dance club is certainly out of place in an art gallery as it is a form of popular entertainment. By contrast, experimental sound design is right at home in a gallery setting. What happens when we combine them?
The dialectical tension between high and low art often achieves explosive results as is the case with the music of John Zorn or the cinema of Tarantino. While the issue is not unique to the postmodern era [William Grant Still's "Afro-American Symphony" (1930) predates postmodernism by at least 30 years], postmodern philosophy takes a keen interest in the topic. The elitist high art community is a hegemony in need of examination with a very critical eye. Although Still used “blue notes” borrowed from the low art of jazz to great effect more than seventy years ago, this remains a highly controversial technique.
Deconstruction comes into play as we question the binary opposition of high art and low art. The institution of high art obviously defines itself in opposition to low art, while keeping it in a subordinate, inferior position. We are questioning this hierarchical value system as it doesn’t necessarily represent the authoritative position that it would have us believe it represents. Prior to the postmodern era, the ancient standard of quality, as determined by a select group of individuals, maintained a separation that, while effective in filtering commercial and other non-artistic products, also kept certain legitimate art forms from receiving recognition.
Electronic music is one such art form. Though it has roots in the popular dance club traditions of the late 20th century, this says nothing about the artistic validity of contemporary electronic composers working today. With this project, we are showing that although there may be superficial differences between what is commonly accepted as electronic art music and what is widely considered commercial electronic music, they are, in essence, very similar and thus both deserving of artistic recognition and criticism.