DR.STEVE KENNEDY | Masters Blog

STEVE KENNEDY

Due to my lack of note-taking skills, I cannot directly quote Dr. Kennedy. He did, however (and I hope you take my word for it), say something along the lines of - If, what you make, comes from the right place, then it is always good.

I instantly had to agree. Although I'm not entirely sure as to why. It could be a question of passion. My theory here is that if you really, really love and believe in what you do, then you will try to do it to the highest possible (imaginary) standards.

While there is no explicitly written standard for artistry, there is a personal consensus within each person that deliberates on what is really good, and what is really bad.

With this distinct lack of standardisation in mind, how do we group together to understand what is good? How does the majority, collectively agree on what is music? Why is our perception of noise a negative one? I think that these questions are the reason why I find myself particularly attracted to certain elements of electroacoustic music.

The creation of music through noise has captivated and bewildered me during the time I have spent studying sound design. It is a notion that has led to little, concrete understandings. While I understand the technical aspects of how to make a noise-based piece of music (audio processing, manipulation, etc), I am desperately deceived by the transformation. It could be about controlling chaos, exerting dominance on an unsustainable system that has been predesigned to deteriorate into even more chaos. It could be about allowing chaos to take control over what we perceive to be orderly.

The conversation was either preceded by (or proceeded) to develop into a discourse regarding the artist's right to create. Here we have a debate that is centered around freedom of expression. In essence, should ALL art be allowed? Should we regulate art? Is it the art or is it the artist that should be regulated? In the same vein as the discussion between noise and music, where is the line that borders art and propaganda? In modern speak, where is the line that borders entertainment and advertising? Since Youtube's rise in popularity among younger and younger audiences, there has been an increase in advertisements masquerading as children's videos.

I have chosen these videos and the creators of these videos because they deliberately make a point of saying when they are advertising in a very explicit manner.

The issue here is that some people are unable to differentiate between entertainment and advertisements. The artist knows what they are doing. They are conscious that they are either being paid to include these ads or are at least hoping for personal gain from them. This form of deception has rooted itself in contemporary streaming culture. I will, however, argue that the companies paying these artists for promotion are preying on the hard work and necessity of money of the artist. This then leads to a debate regarding the integrity of content and the integrity of the artist. Is there a balance between integrity and money? An equilibrium that meets compromise and the tokens we use to trade to satisfy basic human needs? Possibly.

sorry for the tangent

Reflecting back towards the idea of organizing noise into music, it feels to me rather like unscrambling an egg. Noise and chaos are related to me in fragmented ways. Shards of glass are chaotic, noise is chaotic. Traffic and loud industrial sounds can be considered noise pollution because they have been observed to damage hearing when being exposed to them for long periods of time. The relative quiet of a natural soundscape is regarded as healthy and spiritually beneficial. In this case, spiritual refers to breaking free of the heavily industrialized world and moving towards a space that focuses on the artisan, the hand-made, and the simple.

Noise is chaotic. Music is organized noise.

Noise pollutes sound. Music compliments sound.

Both of them are sound. Both have very similar characteristics. I'm reminded about how we share around 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Yet, in general, we seem to be the more organized, intelligent species. We are both structurally primate and yet, a tiny difference makes all the difference. What would the same 2% increase in intelligence look, sound, smell, feel like to us?

CHAOS VS ORDER

I have a conflict with chaos vs order. I feel as if order is made up of tiny bits of chaos. They are symbiotic, and not mutually exclusive. If we take the example of a cell, from a (relatively short) distance, we observe a system of order. Within that, we see chaos. When we observe that chaos, we again see order. The human body also seems to be an orderly system. If we go down to the atomic level of a human being, it can be described as a chaotic mess of atoms bumping into each other. Chaos, can then be described as the unobserved. The unknown. Once we find a reason for the chaos, we design order on its behalf, for our benefit. The observer, then, creates order by organizing chaos. By organizing noise.

Entropy describes the tendency of a system to disintegrate into disorder. Entropy is then the force that acts upon our ideology of order. Perception is, possibly, the most important aspect of chaos. If the single living cell was intelligent and introspective, one can imagine that it could describe its inner workings not as an example of systemic chaos, but of an orderly structure that has a reason for its humanly-perceived chaos. If we met a species with which had an extra 2% of genetic intelligence, there's a possibility that it could understand a system within anything that we call absolute randomity.

"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order."

Carl Jung