Perhaps his music is “Ryoji Ikeda” music, in that no one else could make it, and if someone laid claim to it, even if they, say, called it &/| which means “and/or” or half of some teeter-totter fun, or else /^} which could be “division to the power of a bracket” or a pretty ideogram, instead of +/-, and if they then plastered their name all over it, inside of it, it would still be easy to show that Ryoji Ikeda is the author/artist. How so? Some people have an argument against this notion: for another post, god be willing, I will find the exact word, it escapes me sometimes as I feel something has a stranglehold on my mind. But it is a specious argument. At least, when it is the minimum case of one person or a collective (We are Borg), contending it is theirs when it isn't, the argument I am unable to present is even more useless. The problem is the general case, but I find the Go Make Another One And We’ll Hear Or May We Please Watch? test would come into play. There are legal precedents for obscure, and far less obscure, musical plagiarism. That is more of a stretch than outright theft, so theft should be easy to show.
What does music theft mean? I’m going on about this only because I am writing an article for a local record label’s inform, blog-like column, for composers and similar educators to discuss their work, but more in the sitting at a cafe with a bunch of students—the best lessons are had that way—and writing as if someone said, “Why did you do such-and-such, and this time please be pragmatic! Please don’t try Deleuze. Not appropriate!” See Howard Stelzer’s magazine. Mine’s not up yet because it isn’t written (funny, that), but drafts like this, a scattering of ideas, virally spreading, all over the net, are. Ikeda’s CD is structured in those triplets (three lots of three, plus a kind of summary). The pieces within the triplet run on into the next, and while the transition is as seamless as any other, the music of the new track then has a different bunch of material and transitions to throw at us, I hope bloodlessbloodlessy.
I decided, kind of to frame the task—and I wanted to pump out this music as fast as possible for no real reason, since I’m in no hurry to publish, it’s not like my music is going anywhere—such that each piece uses only the material of a single, chosen “victim” (sacrificial? take me to a Mithraeum) piece: that piece alone (altars are small, but were very powerful in the cult of Mithras, rather like a small alteration here and there can be very powerful when organized and calculated perfectly, or altercations, more fun). And each has a completely different form/content thing happening/being, I’ll even throw out the word dialectic. There. For example, one piece might use a specific technique of altering frequency domain information—perhaps my favorite area to work in, though it’s become a lot harder—either my brain is anti-fractal (I never did like them anyhow—Skeeter Davis) or the sounds are kind of fractal, almost inaudibly. I have written a few papers on the subject, scattered unacademically around the non-academic web—a kind of deathwish in several ways (so if I die mysteriously, blame it on the brainweb of academia and the perverse transfer of ready information). Seriously, how to un-secure a job. Ugh. I will not say what the techniques are quite yet. She or he who stole my multi-disk storage array has all my working files. Learn to tap-dance to their algorithms. Betcha have two right feet.
The video is a still image of the entire spectrograph of the musical aspect, and as the piece moves through its two minutes, I start from low gain/high threshold for the analysis (and therefore color/shape representation) and move to high gain/low threshold. (The coupled terms are in fact similar, not opposites: low gain means not so much sound, and high threshold means to get rid of components that are not loud enough before the gain is applied). At the time I was interested very much in architecture (and I still am), and I go into some detail in one article called “Freak Show” (I’ll ask my friend to add a link to my web maze again once I have completed the clean version’s framework): I made the music and ‘drew’ the spectrograph at the same time, kind of moving from one to the other. It was an important task to me, since I find there to be some quite bogus about Aphex Twin’s spectrographic face. And all the other neat detail—faces, perspective, what seem like words, well, that’s a corruption I have tracked down elsewhere, and published privately on the web (findable but not searchable) until I iron out all creases, take out life insurance, look for a very high paying job (which the articles could well land me...) (and I become a trader at the same time), and I want to have my facts straight. I am very happy with it; I cannot think of too many other examples of two things in this manner being done with no privileged term.
F-ing Cartoon communists
the real and zany end!
What does music theft mean? I’m going on about this only because I am writing an article for a local record label’s inform, blog-like column, for composers and similar educators to discuss their work, but more in the sitting at a cafe with a bunch of students—the best lessons are had that way—and writing as if someone said, “Why did you do such-and-such, and this time please be pragmatic! Please don’t try Deleuze. Not appropriate!” See Howard Stelzer’s magazine. Mine’s not up yet because it isn’t written (funny, that), but drafts like this, a scattering of ideas, virally spreading, all over the net, are. Ikeda’s CD is structured in those triplets (three lots of three, plus a kind of summary). The pieces within the triplet run on into the next, and while the transition is as seamless as any other, the music of the new track then has a different bunch of material and transitions to throw at us, I hope bloodlessbloodlessy.
I decided, kind of to frame the task—and I wanted to pump out this music as fast as possible for no real reason, since I’m in no hurry to publish, it’s not like my music is going anywhere—such that each piece uses only the material of a single, chosen “victim” (sacrificial? take me to a Mithraeum) piece: that piece alone (altars are small, but were very powerful in the cult of Mithras, rather like a small alteration here and there can be very powerful when organized and calculated perfectly, or altercations, more fun). And each has a completely different form/content thing happening/being, I’ll even throw out the word dialectic. There. For example, one piece might use a specific technique of altering frequency domain information—perhaps my favorite area to work in, though it’s become a lot harder—either my brain is anti-fractal (I never did like them anyhow—Skeeter Davis) or the sounds are kind of fractal, almost inaudibly. I have written a few papers on the subject, scattered unacademically around the non-academic web—a kind of deathwish in several ways (so if I die mysteriously, blame it on the brainweb of academia and the perverse transfer of ready information). Seriously, how to un-secure a job. Ugh. I will not say what the techniques are quite yet. She or he who stole my multi-disk storage array has all my working files. Learn to tap-dance to their algorithms. Betcha have two right feet.
The video is a still image of the entire spectrograph of the musical aspect, and as the piece moves through its two minutes, I start from low gain/high threshold for the analysis (and therefore color/shape representation) and move to high gain/low threshold. (The coupled terms are in fact similar, not opposites: low gain means not so much sound, and high threshold means to get rid of components that are not loud enough before the gain is applied). At the time I was interested very much in architecture (and I still am), and I go into some detail in one article called “Freak Show” (I’ll ask my friend to add a link to my web maze again once I have completed the clean version’s framework): I made the music and ‘drew’ the spectrograph at the same time, kind of moving from one to the other. It was an important task to me, since I find there to be some quite bogus about Aphex Twin’s spectrographic face. And all the other neat detail—faces, perspective, what seem like words, well, that’s a corruption I have tracked down elsewhere, and published privately on the web (findable but not searchable) until I iron out all creases, take out life insurance, look for a very high paying job (which the articles could well land me...) (and I become a trader at the same time), and I want to have my facts straight. I am very happy with it; I cannot think of too many other examples of two things in this manner being done with no privileged term.
F-ing Cartoon communists
the real and zany end!
No comments:
Post a Comment