Grain, Sequence, System
[three levels of reception in the performance of laptop music] | |||||||||||||
By
Kim Cascone
| |||||||||||||
Intro
The increasing use of laptop computers in
the performance of electronic music has resurrected timeworn
issues for both musicians and audiences. Liberated by the use
of the laptop as a musical instrument, on the one hand,
musicians have blurred the boundaries separating studio and
stage, as well as the corresponding authorial and performance
modes of work. On the other hand, audiences experience the
laptop's use as a musical instrument as a violation of the
codes of musical performance. This is not a new issue for
electronic music: the lack of visual stimuli while performing
on technological 'instruments' has plagued electronic music for
over fourty years with little progress in providing solutions.
This essay discusses issues of performance from the point of
view of the reception rather than the presentation of
electronic music. Drawing on concepts found in 'reception
theory,' I will examine three levels of reception inherent in
the performance of laptop music as used in contemporary
electronic music. These three levels are: the grain of laptop
performance, the sequence of historical linkages, and the
system of super-culture and its effect on the reception
apparatus of the public.
Spectacle is the guarantor of presence and
authenticity, whereas laptop performance represents artifice
and absence, the alienation and deferment of presence. After
approximately forty years of electronic music, the issues
surrounding the ways in which audiences receive the performance
of electronic music have yet to be resolved. Electronic music
is best appreciated when an audience is engaged in a
contemplative mode of 'active reception.' Problems arise when
an audience receives music in a mode of 'distracted reception.'
'Distracted reception' mode is created by constant immersion in
pop media, and sets expectations that the musician will produce
meaning through spectacle -- which atrophies the audience's
ability to produce meaning for themselves.
Historically, the unfamiliar codes used in
electronic music performance have prevented audiences from
attributing 'presence' and 'authenticity' to the performer.
Seen more as a technician than a musician, the performer of
electronic music hovers over a nest of cables, knobs and
blinking lights, electronic circuits filling the space with
sound via an 'artificial' process.
Today, most live electronic music is
performed on laptop computers in the traditional proscenium
setting of concert halls, theaters, and galleries. This context
invokes the standard performer-audience polarity, which places
the performer in the role of a cultural authority. During
laptop performances, the standard visual codes disappear into
the micro-movements of the performer's hand and wrist motions,
leaving the mainstream audience's expectations unfulfilled.
In traditional musical performances, the
score has an obvious origin that is revealed to an audience by
the act of a musician interpreting it. The musician recalls the
score from his or her memory and performs the piece with
emotional expression, giving the illusion of spontaneous
composition. In laptop performance, the origin of the score is
never revealed; the performer does not serve as a conduit for
it, and does nothing to convince the audience that a score
exists. Music performed on a laptop is lacking in one element:
its unique existence at the place where it happened to be
created. Laptop music adopts the quality of having been
broadcast from an absent space-time rather than a displaced
one. In other words, a score most likely does not exist and the
sounds themselves are unable to reveal a recognizable source.
The laptop musician broadcasts sounds from a virtual non-place;
the performance feigns the effect of presence and authenticity
where none really exists. The cultural artifact produced by the
laptop musician is then misread as 'counterfeit,' leaving the
audience unable to attach value to the experience. The laptop
performer, perhaps unknowingly, has appropriated the practice
of acousmatic music and transplanted its issues.
Sequence: Genre Interrupted
Laptop music has a historical precursor to
its presentation format: 'acousmatic music.' In the practice of
acousmatic music, there are specific codes used for organizing
its presentation and allowing the audience to produce meaning.
In this style of presentation, the composer usually sits in the
audience, operates a mixing board, tape player and / or laptop
computer and 'performs' the composition by playing back its
recording. The audience typically sits facing the loudspeakers
on stage and receives the work as a sonic narrative that is
piloted by the composer. The academic music community has
engaged in this presentation of music without a need for
"the social rituals prompted by the interaction of stage
performer(s) and audience." [1]
Over the past forty years, little has
changed with regard to the public's reception of electronic
music. As audiences become increasingly 'enculturated' by pop
media, the media's 'network of aura' (i.e., the combined effect
of music video, film, TV, radio, Internet, magazines, etc.)
consistently fulfills the public's expectations, thereby
conventionalizing the codes of cultural consumption. The
process of enculturation, the purpose of which is to maximize
profits by creating brand-loyal customers, gradually erodes the
ability to construct meaning in art. By privileging certain
codes of musical performance and fulfilling a conventionalized
set of expectations, it encourages audiences to consume music
as a more of a commodity and less of an art form. The
appropriation of electronic music by dance music culture has
reduced the signifiers it borrowed from 20th century music to
self-referential icons. Without bringing forward their original
contexts, the transformed signifiers have difficulty yielding
new significance. Additionally, the iconic nature of these
signifiers and their newly attached meanings erodes the need to
bring the original contexts forward. The result is that
electronic music (i.e., Electronica) remains bracketed, leaving
the receiver adrift in arbitrary meanings and multiple layers
of misreadings. Electronica uses many of the spectacularized
presentation codes of rock music, and their use has accelerated
a conventionalized set of codes employed to fulfill audience
expectations and sustain demand for products. Consequently,
these audiences misread laptop-oriented sub-cultures such as
'microsound' and 'glitch' because they are unable to work
through the oppositions to their expectations. In order for
electronic music to return to artistic growth, there needs to
be a shift towards recuperating historical contexts, building
awareness of audience expectations, and developing
non-distracted modes of reception.
System: Satellites of Super-Culture
Upon examining how cultural codes and
mechanisms operate in the system of consumer capitalism, it
becomes clear that sub-cultures orbit parasitically around pop
media or super-culture in order to exist. Super-culture
supplies all the necessary systems of economics, advertising,
presentation, etc. that allow a sub-culture to produce demand
for its products in a competitive market. Once a sub-culture
feeds off the systems of super-culture, it encounters similar
political-economic problems. As an example: when money is
exchanged for electronic music performed on a laptop, the
audience has the expectation that they will receive a
demonstration of musical skills they do not own. The more skill
(hence authority) the performer can demonstrate, the more value
is received by the audience. However, it is difficult for an
audience to perceive the value of a performance where the
artist could simply be playing back sound files on a device
more suited for an office cubicle than a stage. Consequently,
the standard codes of musical performance are violated: the
laptop is doing the work, no skill is required or demonstrated,
and the artist could just as easily be any one of the audience
members faking a performance. This violation is fatal to the
audience's attempt at overcoming opposition to their
expectations and reduces the value of the exchange.
The disruption of electronic music from its
historical lineage has displaced the precursors to laptop music
performance. As a result, electronic music culture has become
bracketed, synchronic; its signifiers set adrift and assigned
meaning on an arbitrary basis. The system of super-culture has
severed, assimilated and recast Electronica's artifacts;
providing ease of consumption and easily fulfilling
expectations, thereby driving a demand for its product. Its
use-value remains primarily social, desire-based, and orbits
super-culture / pop-media in parasitic orbit.
Conclusion
What the absence of visual identification
makes anonymous, unifies and prompts a more attentive
listening. [2]
Given the vast network of control that
super-culture exerts over the various culture industries, it is
no fault of the audience that it is unable to recuperate the
lost modes of active reception. While the rotational beacon of
pop media transmits its message of disposable consumption,
other forces are required to recuperate lost modes of
reception. When the default mode becomes one of attention
deficit, it requires too much effort to work past obstacles to
aesthetic appreciation. Laptop music is a result of rhizomatic
growth, the advance of technology that liberates users and
changes the way they organize their work. This change has
caused audiences to become confused as to what they are
consuming; authorial identity is displaced, and the process by
which music is performed remains mystified. If computers are
simply the repositories of intellectual property, then musical
composition and its performance are now also located in this
virtual space. The composer transfers his or her mental work
into the computer, and it is brought to life by interacting
with it through the interface of a software application. The
paradigm may have changed slightly for the transmission of
electronic music, but audiences need to reprogram their
cultural apparatus for active reception in order to recuperate
their ability to participate in the production of meaning. It
is in this way that audiences can better appreciate the
masterful works that will form diachronic linkages for future
musicians and audiences. Electronic music can then resume its
growth as an art form instead of being relegated to the
dustbins of pop media history.
Footnotes:
[1] Darrren Copeland, "Cruising For A Fixing - in this 'Art of Fixed
Sounds'" -- http:
//www.interlog.com/~darcope/cruising.html, as of February 2002.
[2] Francis Dhomont, "Acousmatic, what is it?" --
http://www.electrocd.com/notice.e/9607-0002.html, as of February 2002. | |||||||||||||