hearing everything at once

All at once we are discerning or obscuring the sonic information inundating our (sub)conscious attention. Without a switch allowing a simple off/on function, we are victims to our senses, always sensing the senseless things made and pushed into our space. However aggressively or passively these happenings happen, we are still influenced by the subtle forces of its initiation, its unending. The memories of these sensations are even more affecting.

The white-noise of post-Industrial living is just as industrious, as we are subjected to the rotting fruits of an industry that occurs in much noisier places, hidden across oceans and seas. In our obliviousness of the noise of making, we sit in white silent rooms and assume Value upon objects, objectify persons. Are we listening or hearing -- and know that there are differences in your actions, darling.

But really, can we hear it all, can we widen the aperture to allow in all sounds that are sounding at once? Do we know what we are hearing without ever hearing it before? Must we see what we are hearing to fully understand? Must we be near enough to a source to feel the vibrations? It seems the aural brain prefers to sense a sound, make sense of it, and move onto the next. In our (various) listenings we are awaiting information, content (volume, timbre, inflection, pitch, breath, tremulousness) and context, we are collecting many sounds to dismantle, then reassemble in something that we can in turn share with words, or sounds too.

Our responses to sounds are entrenched and informed by all previous iterations of Sound. Music, often antithetical to Sound, is argued as a more organized occurrence of many sounds, or more common A Sound. Music is a system of codes that encourages economic exchange, that signify an aesthetic experience. Is it always music, or does it become music once Someone says its so? In the Musics of the third millennium, what encourages you to listen? Any why do you listen? The catharsis of music. A membership.


s.

experimental shout-out

amazing noise-artist Tom Lake likes to make things.
he made this so you can make your own sonic magic http://bloomobile.tumblr.com/

he also runs a small indie-label Expanding Pegasus in Rochester, NY. i've been listening to Lake's 2010 Whoomsical Proclamations. check it out!


s.

Pssst...

[listen to this moment-o from an indeterminate coordinate on {?}, until you have tired of it, as if it were a continuous* loop, as an album of pictures - not of a biological life, vulgarly termed, but a living-ever** entity between strikes of a hi-hat. (M)Any moment may be looped indefinitely.]

*8-track-7 ?
** (ἒόν αὶεὶ, or αέόν (a-life[time]) – therefore not living?)
“This record is dedicated to the electronic disseminations of Ash Ra Temple – Live at the ORTF Club”

credits

released 01 March 2014

Dieter Fluchtig, Klaus Z.ß., Panter Kryptexynos, Capacitous(ness), iter, Gesticulator – All things machinic.
dame, slt, Stephanie Lavon Trotter – All things physis

Noise is Nuance and you better believe...

here.  we find ourselves, again, introducing an alignment, or stance, or {im}posture, or address [form(al) of] into a crowded yet unpeopled space.

Knowing/Not who will stumble in/across the words (just cheap signs for the sounds, themselves just cheap sines) and noises [really distinguishable only by the condition and capacity of the newPerson-ed, the stumbler] we (ex)spend our/t ime (s) pace into.  I'm knowing, that sooner or later there will be many discussions of the materiality of the so-called 'matter' we are 'sculpting' (some might argue 'mattering', or 'highlighting, we'll try and clear this up muddily 'today'), but for (k)now ing, I will try and keep off that softRock for the extension of the post.  I am also sure - sooner or L8er - that some grammar lessons will come in to make some ruckus [a regulator must only make a un-noise, an(d) anti-crash, a de-bruit (if-you-will), right??]


Nuance:  I have spent two many years trying to think and then sound, if not write, that nuance is noise.  Nuance is the what still draws one in to that which should be wholly over-defined and over-coded (by [now, which is to say] time {spent := con-fect}).  And then one runs into hidden amongst piles of books half-read; "Now this opposition of matter and form, which corresponds to that of a measurable time and a flexible duration, is called into question, or so I believe, by the consideration of timbre, or rather, the nuance of a sound or a set of sounds." (TI, 155)  Now, J-FL, in his way, does paint a lovely picture of the inapprehensibility of what is really the matter apprehend is the need for other matter as a "support" to compare the apprehended with [the ochered].  This is familiar-ish territory for those who've dipped into Massumi or D and G, but there is here an emphasis on the matter-ed-ness of our coming-to-sound that brings up some resonant tangents.

There is also later (more explicitly, but implicit throughout), if I understood the essay at all, this: "If there is no possible repetition of this nuance [he means here, the way THIS sound SOUNDS NOW, before being taken up (you might say corrupted) as heard/listened to], it must be because it is not inscribed.  Our disappointment when we listen to a recording is directed at the singularity that can't be found." (157)  I think many 'modern' readers would stagger a bit at the last statement, just from their habit of listening.  And I think Lyo is doing a bit of the same covering here.  As is his M.O. he needs every aesthetic experience to offer (in-itself) the possibility of revolution, or change.  There is an intellectual desire for some apparent (yet unnoticed, by definition) "singularity" in the way THESE SOUNDS ARE happening.  It would be a fault of the material for not offering itself differently every time.

But the 'materials' are come to differently every time to the extent that one is ready and able to 'hear' something 'different' in them.  And I'm not (neither is J-FL though) talking [just?] about "I never noticed that hi-hat" or "wow, that back-masking really does sound like (all) the Mozart Horn Concertos sped up..."  We might put forward that the materials [which obviously go beyond what could be measured of them] are really only 'materialised' when the listener does exactly the reconstruction that Lyo is arguing makes hearing 'what is' impossible yet/and makes listening worth it.  We materialise not with physics (its numbers and units, not what occurs that it models) but with the support of every other sound we've ever folded into our selves....

There is so much more to say, but Trottertrotter web 2.0 is just about live so back to uploading... more soon.

n.

______________

(TI) The Inhuman.  Jean-Francois Lyotard.  1991.  Stanford U.P. Stanford, CA.

(not a proper biblio entry, I know, bite it)