speculation on the silence of the song- p1 by elysia crampton despite music’s defining dimension of sound, the song in its physical substance holds an enigmatic silence that is grounded in violent neutrality. this silence exists outside of music’s audible network/scope- at the level of the song’s occupied space in time. everything contained by the song stems from this material space- the event of the song occurs on the stage of this gaping ‘silence.’ the inactive song gives testament to this silence- just open the sound files in your computer without pressing ‘play.’ like a repository, this silent cavity in the structure of the song’s material stasis creates a depot that houses the transitory and barren markers that make up its content. the song’s unstable neutrality is built on this very silence. this may explain how one song can seamlessly transition from representing an insurgent group, national anthem, ringtone, soundcloud celebrity, or all of them simultaneously. it is not that one version was co-opted, hijacked from the former; all intentionality is lost on the indiscriminate mute platform of the song. history, legislation, and privatization leave no guarantees against the abyss of creative commons generated by the song’s silence. the song desires to be shared, as its life is protracted in so far as it can be remade, renewed, reimagined. endorsement of its former identity could mean a reenactment of its own death, and each performance pulls the song into even more incongruent and paradoxical places of existence. held to this destabilized identity, the song waits to be revitalized in the mind of a new market, overhauled within the changing subject of its evolving listener (we are not the same witness we were two or three years ago). both plants and animals make up the audience of the song- vindicate the purpose of the song in its given world ( rmhiherbal.org/review/2002-1.html#plants ). the greater the audience to the song, the more volatile its neutrality becomes. the song in play resists this neutrality like it resists any coordinates applied to it/ maintained by the manifold. the song relies on the individual to communicate the re-synthesis of its interstices into a new moment of understanding- registered against the plot of silence that is the song’s space in time- the silence that sustains its death and prolongs its potential for life. although faceless, music in its processes deals with images (this applies mostly to human stimuli- plants probably differ). a conveyor belt of pictures- music handles ideologies just as ideologies handle music. but no matter what beliefs, intentions or images are ascribed to the song through its organizing, all concepts are anonymized or purged by the song’s movement into public domain. the song is a raw medium, a happening that takes place above its own silent materiality- unrefined no matter how its function has been delineated or outlined according to its original composer. as medium, the song might remain ‘neutral in appearance’ were it not constantly involved with image-forming subjects, were it not shared. the shared song is pliable- reformed, relabeled, explained- and always moving in time, recharged with political potential by its succeeding handler. the result is something like Kracauer’s blizzard- indeed, so much visual information is transported through the hollow terminal of the shared song that if one were able to visualize the phenomenon, one would not be able to focus, pull coherency from the storm. and yet even in this cyclone, beyond the decibel’d dust- the song remains silent, waiting to be made new. so how can we see the silence? as song writers, composers- how do we save personal intention/ fragile conception from the violent liberation of the song? are we wrong to attempt sparing the song its myriad personae, representations, heads, for the sake of our solitary politicals/ personal agenda? what really sticks? what does the song’s masterless identity entail in a world of slavery, against the pressing elusivity of emancipation in the slagheap of struggle? or is the song always reliant on a new master bound relationship- and at what point in all of this movement does the thing’s strength disintegrate into weakness? for me, this is the only saving grace in cage’s famous 4’33”- where he made clear the spacial-land component, the territorial dimension of the song itself- the song as essentially a place of occupation- a plot for sale, for lease. never mind who claims to own this land- who’s building on it and who’s contracted the building? Going back to Levinas- does the song’s innate silence (as composition) always amount to silencing? is one proportional to the other? does this neutrality, this silence, wipe all ethics (and all ethical questions) away from the space of the song? what factors do current aesthetics of music’s materiality- storage media, sound wave images, 3-D maps, sheet music, etc- account for in the power-play of the song’s alleged neutrality? dealing with this issue- the politics and ethics of the song- will be a lifetime’s work/uncovering for me- which, at the moment i continue to approach with Levinasian skepticism-
Posted on: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:49:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015