SOUNDer

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:32:01 -0500

Do you find it fascinating, this process?
Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
why do we do it?
Why does one obsess over it?
Why does one need to display it?
Even if you have a son or daughter, you need to “show them off” to your friends, no? They make you proud, or humiliate you. Is this not in the same family of relationships composers, performers, creators (in general), and their “objects of art/focus” have.

Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
intent, intention, direction, focus, flow, synthesis...

I speak from the world of sound- yet it goes much deeper than that. Sure, my experiences are from the musical perspective (and I know I’m “blinded” by it): I’ll admit to being biased. How could I NOT be? To be biased, to adjust one’s track/sensitivity/input/alignment/reception, is a required part of it all, don’t you think?
Yes, there are bad ways of going about things- not being open to things outside our own little box of experience, or simply adhering to some pre-formed dogma that created comfortable borders so we don’t have to worry about figuring it all out- it works perfectly for so many, yet its a disaster for the many others...

Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
intent, intention, direction, focus, flow, synthesis...
examination, perspective, position change...

After a work is initially “pulled” into existence (by however means you feel comfortable to insert here), there is a period of doubt, of self-examination, of referencing the self, looking into a mirror and identifying yourself apart from the work, yet feeling that it IS because of you this work “is”. This singularity to duality mode-shift is one of the amazing forces of the creative mechanism/spirit/[insert other terms here]. It mirrors itself in so many ways. Just spend a little time thinking about it. It will blow your mind.

Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
intent, intention, direction, focus, flow, synthesis...
examination, perspective, position change...
re-contextualizing, rethinking, re-experiencing, editing...

OK, so then one needs to step back from a work, in order to edit it, correct? Perhaps I found this single step (pun intended) to be one of the longest and most un-natural for me. Nevertheless, once one has achieved some distance, or separation, it is easier to make changes to a work. Interesting that writers use “editors” to go through their manuscripts and “clean-up” things, etc. Composers tend not to go this route, at all...although if one is working on a film score, its even more painful- because now you have a troupe of arrangers, orchestrators, editors and creators all giving “friendly” advice as to what you should do to your work (which at times will attempt to mask simple and ancient power-play routines).

YOUR work?
Whose IS it anyway? Do you actually OWN the sounds that are being emitted from whatever sound-producing-source? What IS ownership these days? In the world of real-estate, its pretty cut and dry. In the art world, its not too complex. In the Music world, its complex. In the film world, its hideously obtuse...on purpose.

So you “have” a piece. So what? What are you going to do with it? You could do nothing and wait for someone else to “discover” your work, or you could frame it in a public performance, and present it yourself. For some reason it seems to hold more weight when someone ELSE “happens upon” your work, likes it, and shouts out to the world about it.
Why should this carry more weight than YOU presenting your own work? YOU know that work the best, YOU also know your own abilities, and how this work stacks-up against other works (of course you’re biased, but that’s OK). The one who “finds” you, then displays their approval of your work may not know anything about you- it might be based purely on the work itself. Maybe they don’t even know WHO the creator is!
How many of you have ever gotten a bunch of mp3’s from someone, with “track1” as the title, and really gotten into some of the songs- but when you learned it was by someone you know- or even a FRIEND of yours, it lost its shine? Come on, admit it. Its happened, right?

Why? What does this all mean?

If I take the word “mean” as average- then this simply is an indication of “in-law-itis”. In other words, you’re less likely to date and fall in love with someone who’s parents are good friends of yours, or your own parents...its the mystery of the unknown.

So, then why is it so important to make the creator known?
For years now, I’ve had tons of tunes by people with alias-names. “DJ-DorkWad”, or “DJ-Supertastic”, or “DJ-I’m-In-Love-With-My-Own-Persona-So-I-Will-Get-Laid-Because-Others-Will-Think-I’m-Cool-Since-I-Have-An-Alias-As-Dumbass-As-This”...
What does this allow? It allows us to (1) step outside of ourselves (like dressing up for Halloween) and (2) also allows for no responsibility should the person listening NOT like what they hear. THEN its not painful, we’re not hurt by it- they don’t know who YOU are, and you don’t feel the pain. Awesome. So easy...I’m sure it got a lot of DJ-alias’ laid. Good for them.

Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
intent, intention, direction, focus, flow, synthesis...
examination, perspective, position change...
re-contextualizing, rethinking, re-experiencing, editing...
re-creating, new direction, change, new-newness...

Mean. Meaning- average, 1/2 way, middle, non-committal, ditty-non-pritty, mugly-non-ugly, not dangerous, not-not dangerous, not anything but the middle (That’s what the DJ’s are aiming for, right ladies?). Then forget substance, its not important- since its the mean.

Meaning. In music? that’s a can of serious wormage, my friend. Its not something that we can talk about and NOT get into a serious argument over- because music is ether, it doesn’t exist until it happens- acoustically or digitally, live or frozen. Each individual provides their own mean-ing to the sounds they hear, literally “averaging-out” the possibilities. Then a sound can mean everything, and nothing at the same time. A sound is energy, transformed into a personal experience through the 24 frame-per-second-world of time.

The Meaning is everything combined to create an average.
So, that “mean”s that we all need to listen to MORE music, more works that stretch our ears, and experiences, and the whole grows.

Sounds suspiciously “morphogenetic” to me...but good old Tom, I mean good old Rupert Sheldrake, as suave- and well spoken as he is- is considered a charlatan-snake-oil-man by the scientific community- yet loved by the TV-watching NPR-ists. So what does that “mean”?

What does it mean?

Perhaps an Annoying Idiot will have an answer.
I’m listening.

Creator, creating, createe, creation, created...
intent, intention, direction, focus, flow, synthesis...
examination, perspective, position change...
re-contextualizing, rethinking, re-experiencing, editing...
re-creating, new direction, change, new-newness...
collapsing the wave-function of mean-ing....

...just listen.

SOUND

Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:52:15 -0400

Initial force causes oscillation, vibration, transmission through some sort of resonant body or chamber, transmission through another resonant carrier, collection/capture of sonic energy, interpretation/presentation/experience of oscillatory-data unfolding in a delicate ribbon of time.

THOUGHTS

SOUNDer

SOUND