Susanna
I've read your post three times now and I'm still not sure if you're
agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just expanding the subject.
>
>Time [in it's relativity and subjectivity] is a primary principle in forming
>music; along with tonality, structure, text, concept, intention, moment,
>theory, enduring spaces/structures for performance, social pretext,
>imagination, and even on occasion, free will.
I wasn't trying to say that music is somehow like, one dimensional, that
time is the only thing
that defines it. I was trying to point out that time is essential to its
existence.
>
>The background *noise* of the universe could be considered music, and it
>would be hard to locate any entity less subject to time as you or I might
>conceive of...
You mean radiation? I don't think the term "noise" in this case actually
refers to any kind of sound (I guess that's why you put the word between
asterisks?), though I guess it could be converted into sound, like white
noise. I don't know that I'd consider this music. I'd probably call it
noise, not because of any aesthetic deficiency, but because I understand
music to be the result of an intention, it's something we make, even if we
make it by just finding it. Just a definition thing....
> Music [sound images] can be easily
>understood to be even more elastic than visuals.
I have no idea what this means. What are sound images?
and James,
>yeah i think a filmmaker using images the way a musician uses notes is
>very interesting and powerful yet it still remains in the realm of
>cinema and is fundamentally different at its base.
I wonder if cinema is even the right term? Is cinema the proper term to
apply if there's no film involved? If you're manipulating sound and image
all as digital information? If you were optimistic you could think of these
new circumstances as an opportunity to get away from cinema and a lot of
what that term implies, not because it's bad, but just to do something
else.
>I think that music is
>essentially different and communicates differently at its base. when a
>piece of music comes into a film it brings along with it its own power,
>its own way of communication. music is sound based! - what would music
>be without sound?
Of course music involves sound! By trying to point out the essential
connection between music and time I in no way meant to suggest that aspects
that you and Susanna talk about aren't there or are unimportant.
>time captures the sound within this particular realm.
>i would also think that if you suppose that music is time based,
>everything would be time based?
Everything is a pretty big subject! My emphasis on time is practical, has
to do with the mechanics of constructing a composition, rhythm, dynamics,
tension, release, blah blah blah...
> Yet, youre point concerning the cinema
>working like music is very good, and is something that i am very
>interested in exploring on the basis of a "collage aesthetic." Here i am
>thinking about a collage form in art i.e. synthetic cubism, surrealism,
>dada, sampling in hip hop - dj shadow & dj spooky... and with found
>footage cinema Martin Arnold, Craig Baldwin, Bruce Conner...
These are interesting people that you mention, and I like the collage thing
a lot, but I don't think
collage is essential to what I was suggesting.
Mark O'Connell
[log in to unmask]
www.markoconnell.org
|