At 02:43 PM 12/13/2003, Kurt wrote:
quoted 28 lines The REAL Mxyzptlk <therealmxyzptlk@comcast.net> wrote:>The REAL Mxyzptlk <therealmxyzptlk@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Subject: Lawrence: The Absence of Blight
>>
>>I just can't play this in the background when I'm doing my final papers for
>>school.
>>It sucks me in. What a fine, fine record.
>
>
>In the past year I happened to get back into contemporary classical music.
>the shocking thing i discovered was how slack-ass my listening habits had
>become listening to electronica. which is to say, if you listen to a piece
>by Grisey or Sciarrino or Stockhausen (to name a few that got me excited
>this year), you can't just flip it on in the background -- you really have
>to sit and listen with intense focus or you'll miss what's going on almost
>completely.
>
>so it's funny to read this post and be reminded of how many of my favorite
>electrnoica albums have been things I would typically flip on and then
>listen to with moderate or intermittent attention. you could look at the
>respected Mr. Mxyzptlk's post and see that it's kind of a humorously low
>standard he is citing on behalf of Lawrence -- a recording so good you
>actually can't write a term paper while listening to it. this would seem
>to be about the least amount of attention you could possibly give to a
>piece of music short of leaving the room and closing the door!
>
>what does it all mean?
>
>kurt
I'm not sure I have an answer - in fact, I'm quite sure I don't...but it
seems to me that your point could assume a sort of monolithic "attention
requirement" function from music which could be construed as predicated
upon music as having one particular purpose or utility. If one takes the
notion of ambient music in general (which might be thought of as music
which can be in the background as easily as in the foreground of the
attention), it brings forward the notion implied in your post - a dynamic
between the listener and the music - without much comment on the music at
all. Maybe we can take a page (har de har :-) from Literary critic Roland
Barthes and see some musics as more "readerly" and others as more
"writerly" - and often some musics being purposely created to be to one
side or the other of the dynamic(?).
What I meant to say was that this one - for whatever reason -
sucked me away from my paper and would not allow me to "background" it. As
I re-read my post, I see how what I DID say can be interpreted as that
particular quality caused me to give the Lawrence record a "thumbs up". And
I suppose that is indeed at least partially true. If "something" about a
record didn't grab me
I wouldn't be real interested in giving it a second listen - if I want that
particular thing out of the piece I am playing. That could say just as
much/more about "where I'm at" in my listening temperament as it does about
the record in question, though.
And it would be almost as uninteresting to post something about my status
as a listener and how I want music to function for me (as opposed to saying
something about the 'quality' of a certain record) as it is to crap on like
I am now doing because I have been
taking literary theory classes far too long :-)
jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org