The Minimal artistic ideal

gmschroeder · Post by **gmschroeder** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:17 pm

tzusing wrote: you can't tell me minimalism from the 1960's didn't somehow contribute some ideas for the music now.

I haven't heard anyone around here bring up Rauschenberg.

Have you?

thom · Post by **thom** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:21 pm

I have.

I don't remember my great-grandparents names. We have the same blood still. (about comparing 60's tape music to today's stuff).

hydrogen · Post by **hydrogen** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:40 pm

tzusing wrote:Also i want to make th point that what we do now cannot be attributed to a small group of individuals. but is rather birthed from years of other people's experimentation.

For me personally, I directly attribute what I do to the small group of individuals who make this music. Jeff Mills, Hawtin, ben sims, James Ruskin, Surgeon... Really if it wasn't for these guys I'm not sure If I would be writing or mixing techno.

As a collective thing I think its a difficult path to trace back and talk about influences. If you tried to connect the dots, the matrix would just be as complex as the human mind.

tzusing wrote: the fact that the music played by monks in temples here in taiwan gets me in the same trance as music made by the likes of sleeparchive, Ø or basic channel.
thats exciting is it not?

Thats pretty exciting, but I'd rather be listening to basic channel.

thom · Post by **thom** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:07 pm

I've been watching the Delia Derbyshire vid in a loop.
I want to go 40 years back in time, marry her and take her back to the future so she can kick ass.

The old days really sucked for women artists. They probably called her a witch back then.

thom · Post by **thom** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:11 pm

Oh my god she's dead.

I have this thing in my throat...

tzusing · Post by **tzusing** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:20 pm

hydrogen wrote: As a collective thing I think its a difficult path to trace back and talk about influences. If you tried to connect the dots, the matrix would just be as complex as the human mind.

i agree. which is why i say there is soo fucking much to expand on. and guys like philp sherburne can make a living doing it.

hydrogen wrote: Thats pretty exciting, but I'd rather be listening to basic channel.

i would too. but you know...monks arn't interested in sellings albums or pushing envelops. its music strictly for the purpose of entering a higher state of consciousnesses. (sorry i had to do that =P )

if we wants to bring up visual artists..i think mark rothko would be on top of the list as richie hawtin himself straight up said something along the lines of how mark rothko is the visual representation of his concept 1 series. (from his slices doc)

sauce · Post by **sauce** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:39 pm

tzusing wrote:monks arn't interested in sellings albums or pushing envelops. its music strictly for the purpose of entering a higher state of consciousnesses.

And that, dear friend, is probably the original epiphane! I accept..

I think some of you have missed my point, but no matter!! I see most of you have points of your own.. So, whether or not my original post was meant to be serious becomes irrelevant. Thank you all so much for your input.

I guess what I was getting at is this: There will always be technological advancecs that changes the way we compose music, changes the way we listen to music and even changes the music itself. OF COURSE! In 2004 I played a benefit party, in San Francisco, for Alex Grey's Chapel of the Sacred Mirrors. It was an afterparty for a conference called Mind States, a scientific shindig based on science, religion and psychedelics. At the conference itself, I saw and experienced a neuro and bio feedback synthesizer! This technology (and others) will eventually lead to BRAND NEW METHODS for the creation of music, and I am sure the music might be very different from anything we have ever experienced, however..

If the new music adheres to a minimal ideal, then it will still harken to the old days of 20th century minimal composers, architects and artists! That was my point: It's not the music itself, it's the concept that makes minimal, and that hasn't changed much.

Man, you guys are a fun bunch to talk to.. Are there any ladies among us? If so, do you want to go make out?

Red Kite · Post by **Red Kite** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:58 pm

sauce wrote: There will always be technological advancecs that changes the way we compose music, changes the way we listen to music and even changes the music itself. [...] At the conference itself, I saw and experienced a neuro and bio feedback synthesizer! This technology (and others) will eventually lead to BRAND NEW METHODS for the creation of music, and I am sure the music might be very different from anything we have ever experienced, however..

I'm still waiting for an interface that transfers your mental jukebox directly into an audio file. So you could just imagine music and it would be there. And since your brains ins't capable of imagining more than a few layers at the same time (tra that out for yourself), the results would probably very minimal. But that would be a hell lot of fun! (although it might eliminate the potential of the artistic accident, since you can't imagine accidents... Anyway, would be a good way to create samples!)