Academia and dubstep?

[groovescientist]

Hello everyone,

I´m a student of musicology and I´m producing a podcast on the aesthetics and the discourses on dubstep? I recognized that especially in the UK there is a lively blog community debating about dubstep and related issues like the concept of "hauntology" (burials music and his use of old vocal samples, which haunts the lost utopian views of the 90s) or the hardcore continuum.

It`s very interesting to read that, but now I would like to know.. What do you think about that?
The respected Mark Fisher said to me in an interview that especially dubstep as a instrumental genre is crying for theories etc... which can be a really interesting thing...

So help me and write your opinions so that the dubstep "scene" gets more attention on the recipient side? (I´m a huge dubstep fan too, thats why I love to include this in my studies...)

Thank you in advance..

[numaestro]

You need to read "Deep Hautological reverse program swing science: bodyshock and 21st Century Dub aesthetics" by E.L. Metido En Su PropioCulo and "Postmodern noise and the aesthetics of neural displacement" by S.O.Y Gillipollas. I think they are available in
"Symposiums - Depth Strata and the Discourse of Man-Machines" ed by Y.O. Nosébailaasíescribomierda available from Pluto Press.

[logic pro]

You need to read "Deep Hautological reverse program swing science: bodyshock and 21st Century Dub aesthetics" by E.L. Metido En Su PropioCulo and "Postmodern noise and the aesthetics of neural displacement" by S.O.Y Gillipollas. I think they are available in
"Symposiums - Depth Strata and the Discourse of Man-Machines" ed by Y.O. Nosébailaasíescribomierda available from Pluto Press.

i lold hard.

[Woony]

You need to read "Deep Hautological reverse program swing science: bodyshock and 21st Century Dub aesthetics" by E.L. Metido En Su PropioCulo and "Postmodern noise and the aesthetics of neural displacement" by S.O.Y Gillipollas. I think they are available in
"Symposiums - Depth Strata and the Discourse of Man-Machines" ed by Y.O. Nosébailaasíescribomierda available from Pluto Press.

[numaestro]

Hey guys - I don't think your taking this seriously enough As M.I. Orejasorda said in his Sonar lecture this year:

"... Unquestionably the prevailing phonocentric discourses underpinning late-capitalism have repeatedly (re)introduced sterile notions of an inverted power relation producer/listener as against a nexus of power inter-relationships of seductionary plasmic pleasure resources..."

And even more crucially his theoretic intervention states:

"... the meaning of a track is the unlistenable/unlistened pre-aural dimensionality within which its surface depth dynamic is both an inner-outer body shock experience and a prolonged sonic (dis)sonance of its preconceived unheardness."

I have no doubts about the validity of his Victorian child analogy theory either:

"... the interrogation of the tune reveals its unessence as pure text - music should be read and NOT heard"

We need more theory!

[test_recordings]

If you can put that in to plainer terms I might be able to help (or others, for that matter). I'm studying psychology and I have some inkling of how neuroscience relates to music if that's relevant

[numaestro]

If you can put that in to plainer terms I might be able to help (or others, for that matter). I'm studying psychology and I have some inkling of how neuroscience relates to music if that's relevant

I would think it's self-explanatory

[io]

Hey guys - I don't think your taking this seriously enough As M.I. Orejasorda said in his Sonar lecture this year:

"... Unquestionably the prevailing phonocentric discourses underpinning late-capitalism have repeatedly (re)introduced sterile notions of an inverted power relation producer/listener as against a nexus of power inter-relationships of seductionary plasmic pleasure resources..."

And even more crucially his theoretic intervention states:

"... the meaning of a track is the unlistenable/unlistened pre-aural dimensionality within which its surface depth dynamic is both an inner-outer body shock experience and a prolonged sonic (dis)sonance of its preconceived unheardness."

I have no doubts about the validity of his Victorian child analogy theory either:

"... the interrogation of the tune reveals its unessence as pure text - music should be read and NOT heard"

We need more theory!

Fuckin lol.

[Kensington]

This is some deep shit, I like it! Be hard for people to even discuss this as it's so deep in the rabbit hole.

[life after math]

This thread has unearthed some traumatic flashbacks of my reading the first few pages of Kode 9's book.

[HORSEFORCE]

its all about the bass.

id like to read an analysis of different dubstep waveforms and how the dominant frequencies of the music resonate your internal organs, but anything more than mathematic or harmonic analysis is pretty stupid. most dubstep is music for music's sake (if you are familiar with that term.) i actually went to music school and the most useful classes are the ones that teach you how to use the tools (eg rhythm, harmony, counterpoint), not the ones that wax philosophical about the deeper meanings of the music. even music history should be more listening and less terminology imho.

pretty sure that as soon as academia gets too involved with any form of music, it takes some of the fun out of it. look at classical music in the 20th century and jazz in the 60s and you'll see what i mean.

[HORSEFORCE]

This thread has unearthed some traumatic flashbacks of my reading the first few pages of Kode 9's book.

how is that? i was reading that pfork interview and it seems like it could either be really interesting or really wanky.

[groovescientist]

its all about the bass.

Sure, why not? Thats a comment too!

id like to read an analysis of different dubstep waveforms and how the dominant frequencies of the music resonate your internal organs, but anything more than mathematic or harmonic analysis is pretty stupid. most dubstep is music for music's sake (if you are familiar with that term.) i actually went to music school and the most useful classes are the ones that teach you how to use the tools (eg rhythm, harmony, counterpoint), not the ones that wax philosophical about the deeper meanings of the music. even music history should be more listening and less terminology imho.

I agree with you in terms of music is for the music`s sake...especially in a listening situation you shouldnt think too much!
But why shouldnt music have "deeper meanings"? Should we yield philosophical theories to the people who think about "more important" things?

pretty sure that as soon as academia gets too involved with any form of music, it takes some of the fun out of it. look at classical music in the 20th century and jazz in the 60s and you'll see what i mean.

I don`t think so. There is a big difference in listening to music and thinking about music isn`t it? When you think about it, you can`t really listen and vice versa. And especially things like the interview with Burial really made me enjoy his music more than ever before. Because I got a different perspective on the music. Suddenly I could hear London or the the ghosts which are hidden in the vocal samples...or the lost utopia from the 90s which has died in the present and so on...

[test_recordings]

If you can put that in to plainer terms I might be able to help (or others, for that matter). I'm studying psychology and I have some inkling of how neuroscience relates to music if that's relevant

I would think it's self-explanatory

To those that know clarification helps though as I now feel ignorant I am tasking myself with diseminating the topic and background to it

[test_recordings]

This seems quite intriguing.. has anyone else noticed when you take quite a bit of LSD and you're listening to music in 4/4 timing that all the rhythms start to become rather similar and almost childish in their simplicity? In Dan Levitin's book 'Your Brain On Music' a quite renowned neuroscientist remarks that it's timbre that seems to define a genre as all rhythms are comparable on a fractional basis too, so musical aesthetics are simply the creation of an identity?
I remember reading an interview with burial and he said he was trying to make music that sounded like the raves his brother would go to yet he would only really catch what they were listening to afterwards, probably when they're all spannered and monging out yet still buzzing, and I think his music comes across like a good impression of that.

I think this hauntology is a natural reflection of cycles in cultures, stuff comes in and out of fashion because there's only so much people really have in their lives because they can only really handle so many concepts or parts thereof yet it's made out to be new when it comes back in as the people that are taking an interest are the ones that haven't had it (so it is new in a way). Even architecture goes round in circles, like gothic building styles, and in the future will in turn want old style buildings as well as laughing at the thought of it. At the end of the day a building has a functional difference to a piece of art but they can be entwined for an ulterior purpose (demonstrating cultural superiority, differentiating it from another structure..). I'm going to ramble if I try to write anymore so I shall retreat and consider the video in the ninja forum about how dubstep is related to house through hardcore, jungle and speed garage and how future genres might be able to be predicted.. relevant yay/nay?

[HORSEFORCE]

its all about the bass.

Sure, why not? Thats a comment too!

id like to read an analysis of different dubstep waveforms and how the dominant frequencies of the music resonate your internal organs, but anything more than mathematic or harmonic analysis is pretty stupid. most dubstep is music for music's sake (if you are familiar with that term.) i actually went to music school and the most useful classes are the ones that teach you how to use the tools (eg rhythm, harmony, counterpoint), not the ones that wax philosophical about the deeper meanings of the music. even music history should be more listening and less terminology imho.

I agree with you in terms of music is for the music`s sake...especially in a listening situation you shouldnt think too much!
But why shouldnt music have "deeper meanings"? Should we yield philosophical theories to the people who think about "more important" things?

pretty sure that as soon as academia gets too involved with any form of music, it takes some of the fun out of it. look at classical music in the 20th century and jazz in the 60s and you'll see what i mean.

I don`t think so. There is a big difference in listening to music and thinking about music isn`t it? When you think about it, you can`t really listen and vice versa. And especially things like the interview with Burial really made me enjoy his music more than ever before. Because I got a different perspective on the music. Suddenly I could hear London or the the ghosts which are hidden in the vocal samples...or the lost utopia from the 90s which has died in the present and so on...

any supplemental writing to a piece of music will probably enhance/influence how you perceive it, that doesnt mean that it's necessary in order to understand the music. music is a language within itself. so are most art forms (painting, sculpture, architecture etc) and when you write about them, you add a new layer of meaning that was either intended or not intended. my point is that there should ultimately be enough there in any form of art to warrant it being good or bad without saying much, AND that much can be learned simply by understanding music (or any other artform) for what it actually is, on a FUNDAMENTAL level. in music, its just a bunch of waves stacked on top of each other. vibrations, essentially. so, on a fundamental level, one can and should be able understand and appreciate dubstep, just because of the fact that waves stack up and repeat themselves in this genre of music is new and different from any preceding it.

all im wondering is how much of you saying that you experienced burial's music in a new and better way than before comes from the music and how much comes from the wording of that article? is the article more of a catalyst or a necessary ingredient to complete a recipe? also, coming from this observation, what role should academia play in music? ( cause personally, i think it ruined jazz and classical )

just some thoughts.

[JFK]

I would like to add that the majority of sub sonic neo macarthyist theories, or calibrative modern day conjucture, tend to lend themselves to a far less rigid set of rhythmic super latives.

I would be interested to know if anyone here has had any first hand experience of aural subjectivity of this nature? I myself recently finished a paper on the subject that spanned some 300 pages in length. I feel slightly gay today.