bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???

[ouroboros]

so perhaps, to try and tie all this back to the original question,

since the appreciation of the music is entirely subjective, does experiemtnal -or rather the quality of being "experimental" in a good way, unltimately rest on the author's intentions?

i.e. crazy sounding bleeps and glitches could be utter nonsense, but that same utternonsense can be art when the artist exposes the reasons for the nonsense?

I am thinking alot about circuit bending, a hobby I've started recently. Some of the original thoughts and artists have some cool ideas to appreciate. Some of the artists who tweak gadgets use them for cool "noise" music. And some just like to mess withstuff, and their musical creations, if any are barely music, and have no thought behind them.

If this is the case, then perhaps the definition of experimental moves away from the aesthetics of the medium and into the aesthetics of the theory?

[ahja]

The way I different the two is.. the "bleeding edge" stuff actually has a point, it goes somewhere. Whereas, the "noodling" ... doesn't. It just kinda sits there, doesn't evolve, or have any purpose whats-so-ever. It's all about how much actual thought went into the peice, I think. Hah.. and it's very easy to tell.

[visa tapani]

The way I different the two is.. the "bleeding edge" stuff actually has a point, it goes somewhere. Whereas, the "noodling" ... doesn't. It just kinda sits there, doesn't evolve, or have any purpose whats-so-ever. It's all about how much actual thought went into the peice, I think. Hah.. and it's very easy to tell.

It's not easy to tell at all. I like to use the term substance. It's applicable to all forms of music, not only those associated with experimentalism. Sometimes when listening to a smooth jazzy piece with good sounds and vocalist oohing and aahing with a pleasing voice, I suddenly notice that it has no substance. Or a post-rock song with a kinda nice melody and compulsory post-rock dynamics - for some reason, it seems like just a hull.

A lot of classical music is imo completely substantless (and I 'm not even talking about modern and/or difficult stuff).

But then, when listening to a minimal techno track with a 909, a pulsating synth and a simple bass whose filter cutoff gradually changes over the tracks 10 minute lenght, I might feel that the music has substance in abundance.

I'm not trying to say anything about my preferences in music. I'm just saying that there's no formula to it. The tiniest details affect how you perceive a piece. A piece of art can have substance or content in so many different ways that it sometimes is not easy at all to tell what's there. No wonder, then, that artists often misfire in their evaluatin of their works in this respect.

[ouroboros]

The way I different the two is.. the "bleeding edge" stuff actually has a point, it goes somewhere. Whereas, the "noodling" ... doesn't. It just kinda sits there, doesn't evolve, or have any purpose whats-so-ever. It's all about how much actual thought went into the peice, I think. Hah.. and it's very easy to tell.

It's not easy to tell at all. I like to use the term substance. It's applicable to all forms of music, not only those associated with experimentalism. Sometimes when listening to a smooth jazzy piece with good sounds and vocalist oohing and aahing with a pleasing voice, I suddenly notice that it has no substance. Or a post-rock song with a kinda nice melody and compulsory post-rock dynamics - for some reason, it seems like just a hull.

A lot of classical music is imo completely substantless (and I 'm not even talking about modern and/or difficult stuff).

But then, when listening to a minimal techno track with a 909, a pulsating synth and a simple bass whose filter cutoff gradually changes over the tracks 10 minute lenght, I might feel that the music has substance in abundance.

I'm not trying to say anything about my preferences in music. I'm just saying that there's no formula to it. The tiniest details affect how you perceive a piece. A piece of art can have substance or content in so many different ways that it sometimes is not easy at all to tell what's there. No wonder, then, that artists often misfire in their evaluatin of their works in this respect.

I'm not sure if this answers the question, though. What exactly is the substance? So much art has been made substance-less precisely to point out the vapid nature of some art: some are so theoretically constrained as to sound substanceless, like Cage's 4:33 piece. So again, I have to return to the intent behind the experimentalism to evaluate it, especially if aesthetically, it turns me off.

[visa tapani]

What question?

I think we are on a fruitless path if we are trying to cram the "substance" into some kind of formula. There isn't any.

As for intentionalism - yeah, I wrote an essay about that some time ago: "The Intentionalistic Debate - The Relevance of Authorial Intentions to Literary Interpretation". The oldest debate ever. Personally I think intentionalism a load of bollocks and I don't see why we should be interested in the intention of the author. The whole question is somewhat passé nowadays, though, as Dickies institutional theory among others has imo rendered it irrelevant. It's all about the institution, not about the author. But I really can't be arsed to go into all the details of this again. Evading question, maybe, but also tired and lazy.

And yeah, some pieces of arts are statements first and foremosts. Pieces like 4:33 should be separated from umm music that actually conveys something musically. Not that this kind of music can't make statements, but still. You don't listen to 4:33, you acknowledge it.

Well anyway, I maintain that there's usually no need to turn for intent as the basis for evaluation. Turn for institution instead. These issues were imo debated to death in the sixties. There's lots and lots of written material about all this to read, if one feels so obliged.

[Steven West]

I think it goes back to what Ouroboros had said - artisitc intentions. And what I said about 'total commitment'. Not to put vurt and myself on the hot seat, but I don't think vurt 'protects' alot of what he puts up here and elsewhere? And/or issues any of it to much CD's? He just likes fooling with sound and synths and coming up with textures and soundscapes primarily - and I think he's good at it.
I'm pretty much the same myself, and with the internet - I've been putting alot of 'blinkered' stuff up perhaps? But maybe 1 in 10 songs will make it to CD, be registered with Socan and the National Library et al and become firmly 'committed' to fleshing out the continuity and be a milestone to what I was trying to emote and convey in that period of my life. Older songs like 'Supa Fly' and 'Angels Becoming Gods' may come back to haunt me, as they were really blinkered BS - but hopefully my 'catalog' can quash them if so. vurt on the other hand should be capable of committing to a unique esoteric CD, and registering his works with SESAC and all on his side of the pond. (maybe you already have mate - so forgive me. ) So does that make me a better artist than vurt or others who haven't? Of course not. Does it make me more 'committed and serious' as an artist above others here... Only in the eyes of the Goverments and their taxation offices. But yet they still control our history, and the internet does not (over a long span I mean - or maybe it will?) So vurt is more 'known' here per say, but maybe not with Tony Blair and his band. I'm more known with 'the government' here, but less with the public.

What's interesting now is I'm doing less 'paperwork' and just putting up stuff to see what gels. And maybe vurt is considering a viable future with his talents, and all the paperwork that goes with it.

We're all artists just waiting to enlist with the government to fortify national culture and export ourselves as 'proffesional artists' to other countries. Peter Murphy now lives in Istanbul, and Gary Glitter is in....?

[ahja]

The way I different the two is.. the "bleeding edge" stuff actually has a point, it goes somewhere. Whereas, the "noodling" ... doesn't. It just kinda sits there, doesn't evolve, or have any purpose whats-so-ever. It's all about how much actual thought went into the peice, I think. Hah.. and it's very easy to tell.

It's not easy to tell at all. I like to use the term substance. It's applicable to all forms of music, not only those associated with experimentalism. Sometimes when listening to a smooth jazzy piece with good sounds and vocalist oohing and aahing with a pleasing voice, I suddenly notice that it has no substance. Or a post-rock song with a kinda nice melody and compulsory post-rock dynamics - for some reason, it seems like just a hull.

A lot of classical music is imo completely substantless (and I 'm not even talking about modern and/or difficult stuff).

But then, when listening to a minimal techno track with a 909, a pulsating synth and a simple bass whose filter cutoff gradually changes over the tracks 10 minute lenght, I might feel that the music has substance in abundance.

I'm not trying to say anything about my preferences in music. I'm just saying that there's no formula to it. The tiniest details affect how you perceive a piece. A piece of art can have substance or content in so many different ways that it sometimes is not easy at all to tell what's there. No wonder, then, that artists often misfire in their evaluatin of their works in this respect.

Well, It's easy for ME to tell. Does it take talent, or doesn't it? Could any Joe Schmo sit down one night and do the same thing with little or no experience? Is it creative at least? Experimental stuff can sound cool for a minute, but does it get boring after that? Is it redudent to the point where you just want to turn that "crap" off?

I'm an experimental music fan, though I gotta say most of it is crap. 90% doesn't have any direction at all. I'm a big fan of autechre's stuff, but c'mon, a lot of their tracks are worthless. I point autechre out since they are probably the most widely known...

I think the last 'experimental' album I could sit through from track one to the last was 'Lexaunculpt - The Blurring Of Trees'.

[RTaylor]

Personally I think intentionalism a load of bollocks and I don't see why we should be interested in the intention of the author.

Because whether the author communicates that intent determines whether the piece has substance or not.

[RTaylor]

Well, It's easy for ME to tell. Does it take talent, or doesn't it? Could any Joe Schmo sit down one night and do the same thing with little or no experience? Is it creative at least? Experimental stuff can sound cool for a minute, but does it get boring after that? Is it redudent to the point where you just want to turn that "crap" off?

Who cares? I think what matters is that Joe successfully makes himself understood with any medium. If it's boring... it probably shouldn't have been written to disc in the first place.

Good "Experimental", as far as I'm concerned, should do the same as any good experiment. Should state a theorem, test the theorem and give the results.

It's nice if it's packaged, clear, an interesting theory and... something that trys to break through the boundaries of music's current point in evolution.

The problem with a lot of experimentation is that there is no intent... or that the experiment wasn't worth bothering with in the first place or that the artist has just dumped stuff to disc without considering whether or not it's actually worth the electrons. It's the same as posting something that's forced or where you just want to keep the thread going... it's pretty obvious that you're just posting to have something to do... it's not interesting, nor does it say a whole lot.

Beyond that... the artist can use the results of experimentation to make other statements... Ie: take the series of patterns you dumped the other night and use them in something that makes a political point. This is the way I prefer to see experimentation used. It crams more content into the same space.

I'm an experimental music fan, though I gotta say most of it is crap. 90% doesn't have any direction at all. I'm a big fan of autechre's stuff, but c'mon, a lot of their tracks are worthless. I point autechre out since they are probably the most widely known...

Direction being determined by intent.

[cron]

Haven't read right through this thread, but I think some of the problem could come down to the use of the word 'experimental' as somehow being a genre signifier. Similar to the way that the word 'alternative' is used in MTV circles.

Each and every genre since the beginning of time has contained examples of both bleeding edge experimentation and blinkered bullshit.

Except trance.

[RTaylor]

Except trance.

Trance is all bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit?

[cron]

It's supersawtastic!

[vurt]

It's supersawtastic!

new word of the week!!!!you win the chance to use it in as many threads as possible

[aMUSEd]

Haven't read right through this thread, but I think some of the problem could come down to the use of the word 'experimental' as somehow being a genre signifier. Similar to the way that the word 'alternative' is used in MTV circles.

Each and every genre since the beginning of time has contained examples of both bleeding edge experimentation and blinkered bullshit.

Except trance.

Exactly. I've not yet had a chance to listen to much of what people describe as "experimental" music (autechre etc) and tend to avoid anything that seems a bit too trendy (not saying it's not good - just I tend to take my time coming to something and give it time to mature - if it stands the test of time eventually get round to it). Most of the influences on my music are composers like Webern, Ligeti, Penderecki and Ives; all of whom attempted to go beyond conventional narrative structures in music. The idea of music that doesn't have to be "going somewhere" or telling a story but that stands as a composition or piece of musical sculpture in it's own space appeals to me. In a sense that is "experimental" in that it's going beyond certain conventions but I wouldn't call it blinkered or just "noodling". That being said I'm also infuenced by Dada and automatic writing which does challenge you to base creativity on unconsious and subconscious influences and make use of the whole of your creative resources, not just what your conscious brain dictates. So there are links musically with abstract expressionism and the use of doodles and aleatory influences as starting points and as ways of making music more organic and alive but this is intended as serious and I certainly don't see it as a lazy way of making music - it takes thought and planning and creating the right state of mind. Just as when I paint it takes days or even weeks of preparation for example.

[ouroboros]

As for intentionalism - yeah, I wrote an essay about that some time ago: "The Intentionalistic Debate - The Relevance of Authorial Intentions to Literary Interpretation". The oldest debate ever. Personally I think intentionalism a load of bollocks and I don't see why we should be interested in the intention of the author. The whole question is somewhat passé nowadays, though, as Dickies institutional theory among others has imo rendered it irrelevant. It's all about the institution, not about the author. But I really can't be arsed to go into all the details of this again. Evading question, maybe, but also tired and lazy.

And yeah, some pieces of arts are statements first and foremosts. Pieces like 4:33 should be separated from umm music that actually conveys something musically. Not that this kind of music can't make statements, but still. You don't listen to 4:33, you acknowledge it.

Well anyway, I maintain that there's usually no need to turn for intent as the basis for evaluation. Turn for institution instead. These issues were imo debated to death in the sixties. There's lots and lots of written material about all this to read, if one feels so obliged.

I confess I know little about Dickies. From the very little I do know about discussions of art and intention, I am swayed by Derrida's critique of institution: - the artworld seems to pressuppose a definition of art. That is: it's art because everybody says it's art doesn't answer why everybody says it art in the first place

[/quote]