1. 10:45 23rd Apr 2014

    Notes: 85373

    Reblogged from theworstbaeddel

    polanskis:

    if we mutually follow each other there is a 350% chance i’ve started to type a really enthusiastic message into your ask box about how awesome you are but deleted it because it sounded creepy when i read it over for the 832nd time

    (Source: emmathompsoning)

     
  2. 05:59

    Notes: 91

    Reblogged from alexwaepenwifebunny

    When I published No Logo a decade and a half ago, readers were shocked to learn of the abusive conditions under which their clothing and gadgets were manufactured. But we have since learned to live with it—not to condone it, exactly, but to be in a state of constant forgetfulness. Ours is an economy of ghosts, of deliberate blindness.
    — Naomi Klein (via azspot)
     
  3. this isn’t even the main thesis of my paper. this is a preparatory section. i’m analyzing the issues in synchronisms no 1 so that when i put together a technical comparison of it and quartetto i can extrapolate the aesthetic and semiotic issues from synchronisms to quartetto as an intertextual analysis. what am i doing

     
  4. 05:34

    Notes: 2

    Tags: fuck you andie

    The opening of this piece presents the flutist and the tape as unified. We perceive them as a single gestural agent, and thus as a single musical unit. The beginning of Synchronisms No. 1 effectively constructs the combination of flutist and electronic sound as a single complex: flute+tape. Following this, the flute and the tape interact with each other by way of accompaniment - as musical units that are distinct, but complementary, and therefore co- and interdependent: flute/tape. The flute begins to fracture away from the tape, generating its own strand of continuity. The tape enters, and the fault between them widens: flute and tape. They glance backward, reaching toward flute+tape and grasping for each other, but they have lost the intermediary of flute/tape and cannot reach. They fall apart: flute, tape.

    This narrative, taken as a whole, is something of a reverse dialectic. It presents as its starting point a synthesis and subsequently teases that synthesis apart, finally concluding when we are left not with unity but with the glare of the machinic Other separated from the human Self, the ultimate antithetical opposition of subject and object.

     
  5. 02:26

    Notes: 2

    Tags: kittyit

    kittyit replied to your post “actually, that was kinda screwed up. it’s probably more just that this…”

    wahh sorry didnt mean to be prickly… academia gets me a little Pufferfished up :*

    you’ve got no need to be sorry!! <3 that’s totally a legit thing to be pufferfished up about. it was gross of me to be thinking about “”“proper”“” language usage that way, and i am sorry for not realizing that before posting.

     
  6. 21:14 22nd Apr 2014

    Notes: 4

    When people say apologetically that they don’t know anything about music it is quite often the case that they have a broad and deep experience of listening to music, with strong likes and dislikes, and in some cases a considerable ability to reproduce music previously heard or to improvise new music. What they really mean is that they don’t read musical *notation* or that they know insufficient *words* about music. Our predominantly symbolic way of communicating musical process has so distorted our general perception of what ‘knowing’ about music is, that somebody with a command of everything that matters in ‘knowing’ about music can be made to feel ignorant. Meanwhile the people who have charge of the symbols and words remain reasonably complacent that they do ‘know’ about music.
    — David Keane in “At the Threshold of an Aesthetic,” from “The Language of Electroacoustic Music” ed. Simon Emmerson
     
  7. 20:40

    Notes: 4

    Tags: put me in the trash

    and though you’re [expletive deleted] your memory will caaarry ooon

     
  8. 20:25

    Notes: 6

    the gender post was because an ensemble director who is conducting my music and also knows I am a trans woman called me he

     
  9. about the “whilst” post not the gender one

     
  10. actually, that was kinda screwed up. it’s probably more just that this one person annoys me so i’m being a dick and i shouldn’t do that