Diagonal Thoughts

While so many filmmakers distrust or even completely ignore the internet as a distribution or screening medium (see earlier posts), the great Ken Jacobs chooses to celebrate and explore its potential. A few months ago he told us he was actually happy to see his (masterwork!) Star Spangled to Death was available online (via Google video) and now the wonderful Tank.tv initiative just gave him the opportunity to take the online dessemination of his work in his own hands. Together with curator Mark Webber he selected a portfolio of 20 works covering 50 years of his artistic production, from 1957 to the present day. They are shown – in relatively good quality – on the Tank.tv website from 1st October to 30th November, for free. After that period, they will still be available in their archive section (check it out, there are quite a few interesting works and shows there).

For the duration of the online show, there’s also an opportunity for discussion with Jacobs in an extended Q+A session. In his first answers, he clears up a few of his motives:

Q: How do you feel about the internet as a method of distribution or viewing your work?

“I love the Internet and hope to eventually see all my work available on it in best resolution. Free to individuals or perhaps with a non-coercive request for small sums, but standard costs to institutions. Could be that those who wish to can put money in a fund reserved for paying my assistants, that would help. Flo and I enjoy a lower middle-class existence on my teaching-retirement money, perhaps to be wiped out by market machinations but we do not gamble and perhaps will be spared. We’d like to leave something helpful to daughter Nisi and son Azazel. My 78rpm record collection? Doubtful that it’s worth much. A lot of my films and videos of course and they may accrue value. Money does sometimes come to us – sometimes really needed – and we’re always happily surprised. So it’s nice if it happens but couldn’t be less a motive for continuing to make works.”

Q: Many filmmakers are now having their work shown in an art gallery context rather than in the cinema. What do you think about this shift in context and is it suitable for your work?

“Some works could work in galleries but, other than screen size, home-distribution is probably best. Wherever concentration is best is best (we don’t gather in theaters to read books together). No hi-fi beats a well-designed music hall but I like the isolation with the music, the communing alone with the composer or performer that ‘s possible at home. For true conviviality I suggest the sundown stroll, great for mating, that the whole town participates in as practiced in Sicily.”

Q: Besides image quality, do you see major differences between the internet and other media? And will you make works specifically for the internet?
“With Erik Nelson’s help at the computer, we’ve got some short pieces ready for the internet. Just screened two at Anthology, they looked good on the big screen and the audience dug them. Yes; size, volume counts, with music and with images. However, they also look good on Erik’s iPod (I don’t have one). My vague thought is to make them available for downloading at best resolution with a request that people send a dollar into a PayPal account for each one and not charge admission to others to see them. Something like that. If the downloader is short on money, forget it, that’s okay, enjoy the work. I’ve been told there’s writing on the web regarding The Gift Economy. I’m already sold! but it could be because we’re no longer in want. Want. I remember it well.”

Programme :
The Whirled (1956-63), Star Spangled To Death (1957-59/2004), Little Stabs At Happiness (1958-63), Blonde Cobra (1959-63), The Sky Socialist (1964-65), Tom, Tom, The Piper’s Son (1969-71), The Doctor’s Dream (1978), Perfect Film (1985), Flo Rounds A Corner (1999), New York Street Trolleys 1900 (1999), Circling Zero: We See Absence (2002), Krypton Is Doomed (2005), Let There Be Whistleblowers (2005), Ontic Antics Starring Laurel And Hardy; Bye, Molly! (2005), The Surging Sea Of Humanity (2006), Capitalism: Child Labor (2006), New York Ghetto Fishmarket 1903 (2006), Two Wrenching Departures (2006), Razzle Dazzle: The Lost World (2006), Return To The Scene Of The Crime (2008)

Oh, by the way, on Saturday 29 November 2008, Ken is doing one of his ‘Nervous Magic Lantern’ performances (like the one he did in Brussels last year) on the immense IMAX screen of the BFI. A dream coming true! Be sure not to miss it!

Way to go!

This summer the European commission has issued a proposal for the adjustment of Guideline 2006/116/ EC. Amongst other things it proposes to extend copyright protection for performing artists (and record labels) from 50 to 95 years. It was outlined by internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who thinks it’s high time Europe turns copyright from an incentive system (as it was designed) into a “welfare system”. If so, Europe would move into line with the US.

The Financial times states: “the passage to date has not been entirely smooth. Two prominent commissioners – Italy’s Antonio Tajani and telecoms commissioner Viviane Reding – are thought to have opposed the move, on the grounds that it would mainly benefit top-selling artists and record companies. Additionally, it is claimed, there could be problems for cultural institutions that want to make archives available online.”

“Major record labels want to keep control of sound recordings well beyond the current 50-year term so that they can continue to make marginal profits from the few recordings that are still commercially viable half a century after they were laid down,” said a statement from Sound Copyright, a group of rights activists that lobbies against the extension. “Yet if the balance of copyright tips in their favour, it will damage the music industry as a whole, and also individual artists, libraries, academics, businesses and the public.”

Pekka Gronow writes: The gloomy picture painted by the commission – “performers facing an income gap at the end of their lifetimes” mainly applies to the one-hit wonder who made one record in his teens and has never since had any gainful employment. One might still argue that musicians deserve more. After all, composers and other authors are protected 70 years from their year of death (they got a 20-year extension from the EU ten years ago). As a recording may have more than a hundred right owners (every musician who plays on the record), it would not be practical to calculate the protection from the death of the performers, but under present laws, some musicians do live longer than the copyrights of the recordings they made in their youth. But no one will live so long that 95 years from first publication is necessary.”

Indeed, the issue of the extension of copyright in sound recordings has been a controversial one. Quite a few studies recommended that sound recording copyright protection be kept to the existing 50 year term. One of them was written by Andrew Gowers: “Our conclusions were roundly criticised by the music industry in particular for actually doing the non-revolutionary thing of leaving the status quo in place, i.e. 50 years’ term protection for sound recordings,” he said. “I could have made a case for reducing it based on the economic arguments.” The Commission, though, did not agree with Gowers’ analysis.

FT: “Any legislation, meanwhile, will need the backing of a majority of member states and the European parliament, and could face further hurdles then. Britain, for example, has expressed reservations in the past. But there are suggestions in Brussels that the go-ahead for copyright extension could be a trade-off for a separate, widely leaked decision by the Commission’s antitrust arm on the way “collecting societies” – whose job is to gather up and distribute music royalties – do business. “Under the draft antitrust decision, societies are likely to see their domestic monopolies over broadcast material broken down,” says the FT. “Instead, they would be encouraged to compete – by offering better administration – for the right to handle an artist’s performing rights”. Some officials say that the fact that both measures are likely to come up at the same meeting is “coincidence”. Others maintain that the two are connected.”

So, all of this might actually be a trade-off. Don’t get me wrong: the antitrust proposal would actually be a good thing – ask our public broadcaster about their troubles with the domestic collecting societies – but at this price? Pekka Gronow: “The inevitable conclusion is that the only beneficiaries of the proposed extension are the four largest record companies, the only ones with significant catalogues of recordings which would otherwise soon fall into public domain. The additional income from the extension will be so small that it will not encourage investment in new production. The benefits of the proposed extension will be much smaller than the social and cultural costs.”

“If this word ‘music’ is sacred and reserved for eighteenth and nineteenth-century instruments, we can substitute a more meaningful term: organisation of sound.”
John Cage, ‘The Future of Music: Credo’ (1937)

Just some notes on the (dis)organisation and classification of sound. I’ve been researching this a little bit in the context of the ‘Order of Things’ project, and became intruiged by some historical pieces. The score above is from John Cage’s ‘Williams Mix‘ (1952), which is constructed from recorded sounds divided into six types:

A. city sounds
B. country sounds
C. electronic sounds
D. manually-produced sounds, including the literature of music
E. wind-produced sounds, including songs
F. small sounds requiring amplification to be heard with the others

Sounds were further categorized by the predictability or unpredictability of their frequency, timbre and amplitude. These parameters could be “controlled” (predictable) or “variable” (unpredictable). So: Acvc = city sound, controlled frequency, variable timbre, controlled amplitude. The process of creating this piece, as Cage explained, involved the precise cutting/splicing of recorded sounds to create eight separate reel-to-reel, monaural, 15-ips magnetic tape masters for the 4-minute 15-second, octophonic tape piece. The 192-page score is, as Cage referred to it, a kind of “dressmaker’s pattern–it literally shows where the tape shall be cut, and you lay the tape on the score itself.” Cage explained further in a published transcript of a 1985 recorded conversation with author Richard Kostelanetz that “…someone else could follow that recipe, so to speak, with other sources than I had to make another mix.” Later in the conversation, Kostelanetz observed, “But, as you pointed out, even though you made for posterity a score of Williams Mix for others to realize, no one’s ever done it,” to which Cage replied, “But it’s because the manuscript is so big and so little known.”

This kind of “Sonic Taxonomies” were also used by Futurist Luigi Russolo, who organised sounds in six families of noises of the futurist orchestra. In his ‘Art of Noises’ (1913), Russolo wrote: “In this inventory we have encapsulated the most characteristic of the fundamental noises; the others are merely the associations and combinations of these. The rhythmic movements of a noise are infinite: just as with tone there is always a predominant rhythm, but around this numerous other secondary rhythms can be felt.”

1. Roars, Thunderings, Explosions, Hissing roars, Bangs, Booms
2. Whistling, Hissing, Puffing
3. Whispers, Murmurs, Mumbling, Muttering, Gurgling
4. Screeching, Creaking, Rustling, Humming, Crackling, Rubbing
5. Noises obtained by beating on metals, woods, skins, stones, pottery, etc.
6. Voices of animals and people, Shouts, Screams, Shrieks, Wails, Hoots, Howls, Death rattles, Sobs

Later, Stockhausen also made a classification of 68 sound types for the 33 “moments” that comprise his piece Mikrophonie I (1966):

ÄCHZEND: groaning, creaking; BELLEND: baying, barking; BERSTEND: bursting; BRÜLLEND: bellowing, bawling; BRUMMEND: growling (low buzzing); DONNERND: thundering; FAUCHEND: hissing, spitting; FLÖTEND: fluting; GACKERND: cackling; GELLEND: yelling; GERÄUSCH: noise; GRUNZEND: grunting; HAUCHEND: exhaling (like a breeze); HEULEND: howling; JAULEND: wailing; KLÄNGE: pitched sounds; KLAPPERND: clacking; KLATSCHEND: clapping; KLIRREND: clinking, jingling; KNACKEND: cracking; KNALLEND: banging, clanging; KNARREND: grating; KNATTERND: chattering, flapping; KNIRSCHEND: crunching, gnashing; KNISTERND: crisping, crinkling; KNURREND: grumbling, snarling; KRACHEND: crashing; KRÄCHZEND: cawing; KRATZEND: scratching; KREISCHEND: shrieking, screeching; LÄUTEND: pealing, tolling; MURMELND: murmuring; PFEIFEND: piping, whistling; PIEPSEND: cheeping; POSAUNEND: tromboning; PRASSELND: spattering, jangling; PRELLEND: slapping, rebounding; QUAKEND: croaking, quacking; QUIETSCHEND: squeaking, squealing; RASCHELND: crackling; RASSELND: clashing, clanking; RATTELND: rattling; RATTERND: clattering; RAUSCHEND: rushing, rustling; REIBEND: rubbing; RÖCHELND: choking (rattling in the throat); ROLLEND: rolling; RUMPELND: rumbling, thumping; SÄGEND: sawing; SCHARREND: scraping; SCHLÜRFEND: shuffling, slurping; SCHNARCHEND: snorting, snoring; SCHNARREND: twanging, rasping; SCHWIRREND: whizzing, whirring; SINGEND: singing (whining); TÖNEND: ringing, resounding; TOSEND: roaring; TRILLERND: trilling, tinkling; TROMMELND: drumming; TROMPETEND: trumpeting; TUTEND: hooting; UNKEND: keening (or mourning with “u”-timbre); WINSELND: whimpering; WIRBELND: whirling; WISCHEND: wiping, swishing; WISPERND: whispering; ZIRPEND: chirping; ZUPFEND: plucking.

Holger Czukay (who was once a student of Stockhausen, before he started with CAN) wrote about this piece: “Four musicians were standing at a huge tam-tam with some “creation tools” and a microphone in their hand. The tam-tam was prepared at parts with chalk or colophony so that a hard paper bucket for example could scratch upon the chalk- or colophony field (The material which a violinist is contacting his bow to before he starts playing so that he is able to create a tone). Or an electric razor was another device which created a rich world of sounds, when it was touching the surface of the tam-tam. Two microphones was scanning the different sound areas of the tam-tam and got connected with 2 Maihak W49 radio play Eq’s, passive filters with a strong cutting characteristics (years later I was able to get hold of them at an undertaker’s shop). Stockhausen was sitting in the audience at a little mixer and created something like a “tam-tam live dub mix”. If you are able to attend such a performance these days, it still would sound completely up to date. Such a thing together with a right DJ could perfectly fit into the end of the nineties.”

(I always wondered if and how composers such as John Oswald and John Wall classified their sounds…)

Below are also some really nice notations I found on the net, starting with Varèses’s classic ‘Poème Électronique’, created for the Brussels’s World’s Fair of 1958, in collaboration with Le Corbusier and Xenakis. The technology available to Varèse at the time he created Poème Électronique was out of reach for most of his life, forcing him to realize his unique vision through conventional instruments. When early electronic instruments became available, Varèse was quick to use it towards his goal of “organized sound.” Varese’s intention – as stated in “the Liberation of Sound” – was “Liberation from the arbitrary, paralysing tempered system; the possibility of obtaining any number of cycles, or, if still desired, subdivisions of the octave, and consequently the formation of any desired scale; unsuspected range in low and high registers; new harmonic splendours obtainable from the use of subharmonic combinations now impossible; the possibility of obtaining any differential of timbre, sound-combinations and new dynamics far beyond the present human powered orchestra; a sense of sound projection in space by the emission of sound in any part or in many parts of the hall as may be required by the score; cross rhythms unrelated to each other, treated simultaneously, or to use the old word, ‘contrapuntally’, since the machine would be able to beat any number of desired notes, any subdivision of them, omission or fraction of them- all these in a given unit of measure of time which is humanly impossible to attain.”

Aldo Clement, ‘Informel

Jack Glick, Mandolinear

James Drew, Lute in the Attic

Lars Gunner, Demikolon

Lois Andriessen, A Flower Song

Malcolm Goldstein, Illuminations

Sydney Wallace Stegall, Dappled Fields

Ichiyanigi, The Field

Joseph Bird, Defence

Anestis Logothetis, Ichnologia

Philip Corner, Mississippi River

AM Fine, Song for George Brecht

Cornelius Cardew, Treatise

Franco Donatoni, Babai

Graciela Castillo, El Pozo

Philip Krumm

Udo Kasemets, Timepiece for a Solo Performer

Ligeti

John Cage, Fontana Mix

Terry Rusling, Composition no 5

Stockhausen, Studie 2

Xenakis, Mycenae Alpha

(This music is created using the UPIC which makes sound based on drawings that Xenakis made).

Nate Harrison‘s Can I Get An Amen? is a nice audio installation (now part of the exhibition ‘Anna Kournikova Deleted By Memeright Trusted System – Art in the Age of Intellectual Property’, presented by Hartware MedienKunstVerein) that unfolds a critical perspective of perhaps the most sampled drums beat in the history of recorded music, the Amen Break. It begins with the pop track ‘Amen Brother‘ by 60’s soul band The Winstons, and traces the transformation of their drum solo from its original context as part of a ‘B’ side vinyl single into its use as a key aural ingredient in contemporary cultural expression. The work attempts to bring into scrutiny the techno-utopian notion that ‘information wants to be free’- it questions its effectiveness as a democratizing agent. This as well as other issues are foregrounded through a history of the Amen Break and its peculiar relationship to current copyright law.

Also check out Bassline Baseline, Harrison’s documentary about the history of the Roland TB-303 Bassline Synth. “The dead-panned ‘documentary’ video attempts to explore how and why creative tools fail and how increasingly more options, parameters or intermediaries devised during a tool’s research and development phase don’t necessarily lead to increased expressivity or virtuosity during the tool’s lifetime of actual use, unless the super-structure of its cultural context is dramtically reconsidered.”

Auch. Just dug up some horrible stories from the (anti)copyright front.
The RSG collective, led by Alexander Galloway, NYU assistant professor, founding member of the Radical Software Group and author of the inspiring book ‘Protocol‘, has been working some years now on an online version of ‘Le Jeu de la Guerre’ (the Game of War), a board game created by Guy Debord in 1978. Described by McKenzie Wark as “a diagram of the strategic possibilities of spectacular time” inspired by the military theory of Carl von Clausewitz and the European campaigns of Napoleon, Debord’s game is a chess-variant played by two opposing players on a game board of 500 squares arranged in rows of 20 by 25 squares (see image). Thirty years later RSG resurrected this largely forgotten game, translating the game instructions from French to Java and releasing it as an online computer game (what Galloway calls “a massively two-player online game”), titled ‘Kriegspiel‘, which can be downloaded for free. With this re-interpretation, RSG wants to research how antagonism is simulated in war games and computer games and at the same time “explore the contradiction between Debord, a symbol of radical politics and art in 1960s France, and the Napoleonic war game he created. In Debord’s own words the game was the only thing in his entire body of work that had any value. Was it nostalgia, or a vision of things to come?”. Unfortunately, a few months ago Galloway received a letter from a lawyer representing the widow, Alice Becker-Hoa, regarding possible infringement of the rightful owner’s intellectual property. Despite Galloway’s insistence that an “idea for a game” or its “rules” are “not subject to copyright,” there’s a similar recent case, involving the Facebook-based word game Scrabulous, that might pose a dangerous precedent. The Cease and desist already had its effects: when the Columbia University’s Buell Center, where Kriegspiel was on display, along with one of Debord’s games, recieved a letter asking that the curators “suppress any connection with the work of Guy Debord,” where Kriegspiel was concerned, they complied. Whatever reasons one might have to pursue these copyright claims (both claims are likely without merit, by the way), it’s a both horrible and absurd idea, considering how Debord oppossed copyright and (some forms of) intellectual property.

Another equally bizar case happened a few years ago, following the publishing of Pierre Merejkowsky’s film Insurrection résurrection (2004), in which he whistles ‘l’Internationale’ for just about seven seconds, as an act of improvisation. The production company, Les Films sauvages, subsequently recieved a stiff note, return receipt requested, from the Company for the Administration of the Right of Mechanical Reproduction of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SDRM), which manages author’s rights in film media. “In the course of an audit in the movie theaters, our musical inspectors have observed that the work The Internationale was reproduced in the film without authorization. The SDRM therefore demands 1,000 euros for having failed to declare this whistling, which constitutes an illegal usage of a piece of music published by the company Le Chant du Monde (Song of the World)”. It seems that ‘L’Internationale,’ written by Pierre Degeyter (1848-1932), with words by Eugène Pottier (1816-1887), is not in the public domain – not in France, anyways, where they add on 12 years for “les années de guerre” – so whistlers are on the hook until 2014. Besides the horrifying notion that a hymn to the rising up of the proletariat to overthrow existing conditions of exploitation should be subjected to them, it’s also interesting to note that Degeyter himself died in acute poverty. During his lifetime, nobody paid him royalties for all the tens of millions of times his song was used at countless communist and socialist events. In an article in Le Monde Nicole Vulser asks ironically why Pierre Degeyter didn’t die rich: every time that the Internationale was sung in public, he should have gotten royalties, no? SDRM answered: “The Soviet Union violated the law in not redistributing anything to the rights holders”.