ChromaticaGa performs "Bloody Mary" for festival

[NUTELLA 28,124]

Just now, dynamite said:

I like doing similar things, I used to play around with the Realtek program that came with some PCs in the 2000s and change pitch, isolate vocals, add different echos

Just now, dynamite said:

to make it sound live

[hamartia 3,060]

Poor Starmie when Nut and Ghoul came a-runnin’

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,630]

Bloody Mary is beauty

Bloody Mary is grace

Bloody Mary will punch you right in your balls

[dynamite 67,044]

1 minute ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Don’t upset her, sistren…

 

1 minute ago, NUTELLA said:

What 

[NUTELLA 28,124]

Just now, dynamite said:

 

What 

@Ladle Ghoulash i think she's been skimming this thread, at best

(good for her)

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,630]

3 minutes ago, dynamite said:

 

What 

[dynamite 67,044]

20 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

@Ladle Ghoulash i think she's been skimming this thread, at best

(good for her)

That's because none of it is worth reading! 

[bxr 2,388]

4 hours ago, gagacabana said:

Coming back to this because it's such an interesting way of putting art in the age of reproducibility. Maybe, also, it's like seeing through the lens of studio music as if it's a painting, and live music as if it's a photograph?

@bxr i'd love your inputs here 

Wait, LadleTELLA, first off  wonderful causerie and critical discursive exchange … top-line, what immediately surfaced to mind (admittedly, super old school) Roland Barthes‘ “The Death of the Author:” TL:DR—“We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases, by which our society proudly champions precisely what it dismisses, ignores, smothers or destroys; we know that to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.”

Spoiler

Central thesis: [T]he author's intentions and biography should not dictate the interpretation of their work. Instead, it emphasizes that the meaning of a text is created by the reader's individual experience and perspective.

“The Death of the Author”

The absence of the Author (with Brecht, we might speak here of a real "alienation:' the Author diminishing like a tiny figure at the far end of the literary stage) is not only a historical fact or an act of writing: it utterly transforms the modern text (or — what is the same thing — the text is henceforth written and read so that in it, on every level, the Author absents himself). Time, first of all, is no longer the same. The Author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book: the book and the author take their places of their own accord on the same line, cast as a before and an after: the Author is supposed to feed the book — that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child. Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now. This is because (or: it follows that) to write can no longer designate an operation of recording, of observing, of representing, of "painting" (as the Classic writers put it), but rather what the linguisticians, following the vocabulary of the Oxford school, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given to the first person and to the present), in which utterance has no other content than the act by which it is uttered: something like the / Command of kings or the I Sing of the early bards; the modern writer, having buried the Author, can therefore no longer believe, according to the "pathos" of his predecessors, that his hand is too slow for his thought or his passion, and that in consequence, making a law out of necessity, he must accentuate this gap and endlessly "elaborate" his form; for him, on the contrary, his hand, detached from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin — or which, at least, has no other origin than language itself, that is, the very thing which ceaselessly questions any origin.

[ … ]

Spoiler

Let us return to Balzac's sentence: no one (that is, no "person") utters it: its source, its voice is not to be located; and yet it is perfectly read; this is because the true locus of writing is reading. Another very specific example can make this understood: recent investigations (J. P. Vernant) have shed light upon the constitutively ambiguous nature of Greek tragedy, the text of which is woven with words that have double meanings, each character understanding them unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is precisely what is meant by "the tragic"); yet there is someone who understands each word in its duplicity, and understands further, one might say, the very deafness of the characters speaking in front of him: this someone is precisely the reader (or here the spectator). In this way is revealed the whole being of writing: a text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures and entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as we have hitherto said it was, but the reader: the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination; but this destination can no longer be personal: the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted. This is why it is absurd to hear the new writing condemned in the name of a humanism which hypocritically appoints itself the champion of the reader's rights. The reader has never been the concern of classical criticism; for it, there is no other man in literature but the one who writes. We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases […]

 

… and, of the course, Cabanagirl … muito obrigada for the invitation to engage with said discourse … though, I’m not sure how relevant or substantial any input of mine would be … but let‘s just see what surfaces in the stream of consciousness repartee 

For the sake of brevity on the blink … what sort of emerges into some sense of imagery with how Ladle and TELLA explore the form and function of the studio recording and live interpretation … first it was like … the studio recording was the seed and then each subsequent live interpretation was like a branch or fruit stemming from this seminal source …

then it sort of pivoted to a genome, where the studio recording was this strand of DNA with its own source code, and then each replication or duplication and/or mutation still carried this primordial code / sequence, but in that, also sort of established its own character or identity, even if only because of the specific conditions of its emergence and existence (if any of that makes any sense … so like Bloody Mary … as it was on the BTW album, is the source … but even that source is the formal progeny of the studio sessions, which carried an identity only known to the performer, producers, etc. … then the prime source (studio recording) which is the formal canon and the “standard” as understood by the audience and artist

(taking into consideration its past and future, but fundamentally operating from this canon “present” … which sort of reminded me of Aboriginal Dreamtime, where past present and future all coexist in a perpetual present … and that, honestly, is how music feels at its radical core … a time and space void of twain where all iterations exist in the space of that source standard, and all iterations/interpretations are understood to be native to their own operative point of perspective or distinct orientation … but this is rambling so, anyhaps, onward) …

but then I circled back to your incorporation of Benjamin‘s thesis, as well as the example of the painting and photograph, and the studio recording sort of appeared as this sonic iteration of the film negative—there is the event that existed in its own reality, and this experience or moment was captured on film, that negative is the source code, but/and every reproduction is unique in its own distinct variation of that negative, and incorporates all of the nuanced intricacies of its own development process, and further, these various developments take on the identity of the audience to which they are presented in their own unique conditions … so even which audience share the experience of when/where/how they witnessed the developed work establishes a new identity in its own way … but again, the negative as the prime source is embedded across all representations/reproductions …

but this is all just musing salt grains into the airwaves … and just stream of consciousness that I‘m not sure from where it generated or where it went … but just considerations really …

Also, I’m a native member of the TRLdren generation so the concept of studio releases naturally feels multimodal and interactive … because studio records were often introduced by studio produced music videos … so our source reference is/was just really kaleidoscopic in that way … but I’m really intrigued by the film/theatre dichotomy … I’ll have to give that one a further think!

Apologies on the verbose, and I have no idea if this was relevant at all to the topic at hand, but fwiw I thoroughly enjoyed venturing through the looking glass with you all!

Spoiler

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by bxr

[NUTELLA 28,124]

5 minutes ago, bxr said:

Wait, LadleTELLA, first off  wonderful causerie and critical discursive exchange … top-line, what immediately surfaced to mind (admittedly, super old school) Roland Barthes‘ “The Death of the Author:” TL:DR—“We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases, by which our society proudly champions precisely what it dismisses, ignores, smothers or destroys; we know that to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.”

  Reveal hidden contents

Central thesis: [T]he author's intentions and biography should not dictate the interpretation of their work. Instead, it emphasizes that the meaning of a text is created by the reader's individual experience and perspective.

“The Death of the Author”

The absence of the Author (with Brecht, we might speak here of a real "alienation:' the Author diminishing like a tiny figure at the far end of the literary stage) is not only a historical fact or an act of writing: it utterly transforms the modern text (or — what is the same thing — the text is henceforth written and read so that in it, on every level, the Author absents himself). Time, first of all, is no longer the same. The Author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book: the book and the author take their places of their own accord on the same line, cast as a before and an after: the Author is supposed to feed the book — that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child. Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now. This is because (or: it follows that) to write can no longer designate an operation of recording, of observing, of representing, of "painting" (as the Classic writers put it), but rather what the linguisticians, following the vocabulary of the Oxford school, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given to the first person and to the present), in which utterance has no other content than the act by which it is uttered: something like the / Command of kings or the I Sing of the early bards; the modern writer, having buried the Author, can therefore no longer believe, according to the "pathos" of his predecessors, that his hand is too slow for his thought or his passion, and that in consequence, making a law out of necessity, he must accentuate this gap and endlessly "elaborate" his form; for him, on the contrary, his hand, detached from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin — or which, at least, has no other origin than language itself, that is, the very thing which ceaselessly questions any origin.

[ … ]

  Reveal hidden contents

Let us return to Balzac's sentence: no one (that is, no "person") utters it: its source, its voice is not to be located; and yet it is perfectly read; this is because the true locus of writing is reading. Another very specific example can make this understood: recent investigations (J. P. Vernant) have shed light upon the constitutively ambiguous nature of Greek tragedy, the text of which is woven with words that have double meanings, each character understanding them unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is precisely what is meant by "the tragic"); yet there is someone who understands each word in its duplicity, and understands further, one might say, the very deafness of the characters speaking in front of him: this someone is precisely the reader (or here the spectator). In this way is revealed the whole being of writing: a text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures and entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as we have hitherto said it was, but the reader: the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination; but this destination can no longer be personal: the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted. This is why it is absurd to hear the new writing condemned in the name of a humanism which hypocritically appoints itself the champion of the reader's rights. The reader has never been the concern of classical criticism; for it, there is no other man in literature but the one who writes. We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases […]

 

… and, of the course, Cabanagirl … muito obrigada for the invitation to engage with said discourse … though, I’m not sure how relevant or substantial any input of mine would be … but let‘s just see what surfaces in the stream of consciousness repartee 

For the sake of brevity on the blink … what sort of emerges into some sense of imagery with how Ladle and TELLA explore the form and function of the studio recording and live interpretation … first it was like … the studio recording was the seed and then each subsequent live interpretation was like a branch or fruit stemming from this seminal source … then it sort of pivoted to a genome, where the studio recording was this strand of DNA with its own source code, and then each replication or duplication and/or mutation still carried this primordial code / sequence, but in that, also sort of established its own character or identity, even if only because of the specific conditions of its emergence and existence (if any of that makes any sense … so like Bloody Mary … as it was on the BTW album, is the source … but even that source is the formal progeny of the studio sessions, which carried an identity only known to the performer, producers, etc. … then the prime source (studio recording) which is the formal canon and the “standard” as understood by the audience and artist (taking into consideration its past and future, but fundamentally operating from this canon “present” … which sort of reminded me of Aboriginal Dreamtime, where past present and future all coexist in a perpetual present … and that, honestly, is how music feels at its radical core … a time and space void of twain where all iterations exist in the space of that source standard, and all iterations/interpretations are understood to be native to their own operative point of perspective or distinct orientation … but this is rambling so, anyhaps, onward) … but then I circled back to your incorporation of Benjamin‘s thesis, as well as the example of the painting and photograph, and the studio recording sort of appeared as this sonic iteration of the film negative—there is the event that existed in its own reality, and this experience or moment was captured on film, that negative is the source code, but/and every reproduction is unique in its own distinct variation of that negative, and incorporates all of the nuanced intricacies of its own development process, and further, these various developments take on the identity of the audience to which they are presented in their own unique conditions … so even which audience share the experience of when/where/how they witnessed the developed work establishes a new identity in its own way … but again, the negative as the prime source is embedded across all representations/reproductions … but this is all just musing salt grains into the airwaves … and just stream of consciousness that I‘m not sure from where it generated or where it went … but just considerations really …

Also, I’m a native member of the TRLdren generation so the concept of studio releases naturally feels multimodal and interactive … because studio records were often introduced by studio produced music videos … so our source reference is/was just really kaleidoscopic in that way … but I’m really intrigued by the film/theatre dichotomy … I’ll have to give that one a further think!

Apologies on the verbose, and I have no idea if this was relevant at all to the topic at hand, but fwiw I thoroughly enjoyed venturing through the looking glass with you all!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

You have my word:

I will agree to read all of what you wrote...

if you break it up into sane-sized paragraphs first lol

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,338]

2 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

I will agree to read all of what you wrote

[NUTELLA 28,124]

Just now, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I genuinely may have sped-read & ignored a lot of (potentially) valid points you made during the "timezone-segment" of our discussion earlier because your paragraphs were too big & busy-looking for me

For the love of god

break

it

up

[bxr 2,388]

5 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

You have my word:

I will agree to read all of what you wrote...

if you break it up into sane-sized paragraphs first lol

I don‘t know what “sane-sized paragraphs” are … but I just tossed a few breaks in there for you … I’ll revert to the block of text soon-ish though … whew, the entitlement we enable!

[DESTROY UR DISEASE 20,630]

12 minutes ago, bxr said:

Wait, LadleTELLA, first off  wonderful causerie and critical discursive exchange … top-line, what immediately surfaced to mind (admittedly, super old school) Roland Barthes‘ “The Death of the Author:” TL:DR—“We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases, by which our society proudly champions precisely what it dismisses, ignores, smothers or destroys; we know that to restore to writing its future, we must reverse its myth: the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.”

  Reveal hidden contents

Central thesis: [T]he author's intentions and biography should not dictate the interpretation of their work. Instead, it emphasizes that the meaning of a text is created by the reader's individual experience and perspective.

“The Death of the Author”

The absence of the Author (with Brecht, we might speak here of a real "alienation:' the Author diminishing like a tiny figure at the far end of the literary stage) is not only a historical fact or an act of writing: it utterly transforms the modern text (or — what is the same thing — the text is henceforth written and read so that in it, on every level, the Author absents himself). Time, first of all, is no longer the same. The Author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book: the book and the author take their places of their own accord on the same line, cast as a before and an after: the Author is supposed to feed the book — that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child. Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now. This is because (or: it follows that) to write can no longer designate an operation of recording, of observing, of representing, of "painting" (as the Classic writers put it), but rather what the linguisticians, following the vocabulary of the Oxford school, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given to the first person and to the present), in which utterance has no other content than the act by which it is uttered: something like the / Command of kings or the I Sing of the early bards; the modern writer, having buried the Author, can therefore no longer believe, according to the "pathos" of his predecessors, that his hand is too slow for his thought or his passion, and that in consequence, making a law out of necessity, he must accentuate this gap and endlessly "elaborate" his form; for him, on the contrary, his hand, detached from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin — or which, at least, has no other origin than language itself, that is, the very thing which ceaselessly questions any origin.

[ … ]

  Reveal hidden contents

Let us return to Balzac's sentence: no one (that is, no "person") utters it: its source, its voice is not to be located; and yet it is perfectly read; this is because the true locus of writing is reading. Another very specific example can make this understood: recent investigations (J. P. Vernant) have shed light upon the constitutively ambiguous nature of Greek tragedy, the text of which is woven with words that have double meanings, each character understanding them unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is precisely what is meant by "the tragic"); yet there is someone who understands each word in its duplicity, and understands further, one might say, the very deafness of the characters speaking in front of him: this someone is precisely the reader (or here the spectator). In this way is revealed the whole being of writing: a text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures and entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as we have hitherto said it was, but the reader: the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination; but this destination can no longer be personal: the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted. This is why it is absurd to hear the new writing condemned in the name of a humanism which hypocritically appoints itself the champion of the reader's rights. The reader has never been the concern of classical criticism; for it, there is no other man in literature but the one who writes. We are now beginning to be the dupes no longer of such antiphrases […]

 

… and, of the course, Cabanagirl … muito obrigada for the invitation to engage with said discourse … though, I’m not sure how relevant or substantial any input of mine would be … but let‘s just see what surfaces in the stream of consciousness repartee 

For the sake of brevity on the blink … what sort of emerges into some sense of imagery with how Ladle and TELLA explore the form and function of the studio recording and live interpretation … first it was like … the studio recording was the seed and then each subsequent live interpretation was like a branch or fruit stemming from this seminal source …

then it sort of pivoted to a genome, where the studio recording was this strand of DNA with its own source code, and then each replication or duplication and/or mutation still carried this primordial code / sequence, but in that, also sort of established its own character or identity, even if only because of the specific conditions of its emergence and existence (if any of that makes any sense … so like Bloody Mary … as it was on the BTW album, is the source … but even that source is the formal progeny of the studio sessions, which carried an identity only known to the performer, producers, etc. … then the prime source (studio recording) which is the formal canon and the “standard” as understood by the audience and artist

(taking into consideration its past and future, but fundamentally operating from this canon “present” … which sort of reminded me of Aboriginal Dreamtime, where past present and future all coexist in a perpetual present … and that, honestly, is how music feels at its radical core … a time and space void of twain where all iterations exist in the space of that source standard, and all iterations/interpretations are understood to be native to their own operative point of perspective or distinct orientation … but this is rambling so, anyhaps, onward) …

but then I circled back to your incorporation of Benjamin‘s thesis, as well as the example of the painting and photograph, and the studio recording sort of appeared as this sonic iteration of the film negative—there is the event that existed in its own reality, and this experience or moment was captured on film, that negative is the source code, but/and every reproduction is unique in its own distinct variation of that negative, and incorporates all of the nuanced intricacies of its own development process, and further, these various developments take on the identity of the audience to which they are presented in their own unique conditions … so even which audience share the experience of when/where/how they witnessed the developed work establishes a new identity in its own way … but again, the negative as the prime source is embedded across all representations/reproductions …

but this is all just musing salt grains into the airwaves … and just stream of consciousness that I‘m not sure from where it generated or where it went … but just considerations really …

Also, I’m a native member of the TRLdren generation so the concept of studio releases naturally feels multimodal and interactive … because studio records were often introduced by studio produced music videos … so our source reference is/was just really kaleidoscopic in that way … but I’m really intrigued by the film/theatre dichotomy … I’ll have to give that one a further think!

Apologies on the verbose, and I have no idea if this was relevant at all to the topic at hand, but fwiw I thoroughly enjoyed venturing through the looking glass with you all!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,338]

1 minute ago, NUTELLA said:

I genuinely may have sped-read & ignored a lot of (potentially) valid points you made during the "timezone-segment" of our discussion earlier because your paragraphs were too big & busy-looking for me

For the love of god

break

it

up

No. Learn to read.

[bxr 2,388]

2 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

I genuinely may have sped-read & ignored a lot of (potentially) valid points you made during the "timezone-segment" of our discussion earlier because your paragraphs were too big & busy-looking for me

For the love of god

break

it

up

In

this

haus

we 

break

up

our

demands

with 

pleases

and 

thank 

yous