- preface
- The not particularly accomplished study I'm
about to embark on dealswith the theme of the relation between
music and technology. Music,while transcending cultural differences,
is linked closely with techniquein any historical period. Yet
in this age when in a variety of areascomposing, performing,
and listening with computers seems to bebecoming an inevitability,
a special relationship between music andtechnology that is completely
different from any in the past seems tohave emerged. Musicians,
critics, and listeners all respond too eagerly,and anticipate
unconditionally the promise they sense in the wordtechnology.
Over and above the intentions of contemporary art, thisalways
seems to be the first card that must be played, and also alwaysseems
to be the final indulgence. To strike a new vein of artisticexpression,
musicians constantly strive to at the very least never fallbehind
technological advances. In this way, people compete to findsomething,
and words like "transitional" and "experimental"
come to beused as a way of deferring judgment about music that
is still in theprocess of being mined for something of value.
Throughout the history ofmusic, this overly sensitive attitude
toward technology has remainedprevalent as if it was natural,
but when viewed in an objective light itmust be said that this
is a special state of affairs. Therefore, I would liketo deal
not with non-historical aspects of music and technology that
weexpect to be essential, but rather aspects that clearly belong
to "today."And by this the music and technology that
exists in the specificsocio-cultural context of the present,
and my attempts to make musicthrough the use of computers.
- In the past in my writings and lectures about
MAX I heralded thistechnology with a knowing look on my face
saying, "Composition withprogramming language allows you
to become free of a variety of existingconcepts, and express
your ideas directly." As you'll notice, there are anumber
of dangerous verbal landmines buried in this sentence: "free,""your
ideas," "express." It looks as though I've absentmindedly
steppedon one of them. But it was thanks to this that I had an
internal hemorrhagelast summer, and was obliged to have my brain
worked on with the latestmedical technology. Unhealthy ideas
concerning technology and musichave been deposited in my head
since then, and I have come to acomplete standstill. To start
moving again, it is necessary to bring theseunhealthy thoughts
to an end. As a result, I've written this essay tofunction as
a kind of personal (rather masochistic) interrogation thattakes
place in a back room at the stationhouse in which the detective
andthe suspect are both me.
- First of all, let's briefly outline the problem.
The questions that I amasking in this essay are ones that have
never before been stated clearlyin the music world. Whether one
is aware of it or not, by using a computerin music or even by
intending to use a computer, we are no doubt playingwith fire.
I would like to investigate exactly what this might be. We havealready
come to the vague realization that technology is something morethan
an instrumental method. It can't be said that the computer has
thesame relation to a musician as a brush does to a painter.
Despite this, inthe places where music is made, as in every other
area of life, technologyis only the subject of discussion in
regard to the instrumentalpossibilities that have been newly
established by it. What supports ourfaith in technology are the
positions that technology, music and weourselves occupy in today's
society; the arbitration betweentechnological notions and the
artistic act is a theme we do not question.For me, this is not
at all a problem to be speculated on for the sake ofamusement,
but a practical concern that will determine the direction mymusic
takes in the future.
- In order to deal with this, let me briefly
get away from music, and beginby addressing the extremely plain
and tangential question of whatexactly these things we call technology
and the computer in thesocio-cultural context of today are. Although
there is a torrent oftechnology that has been unleashed, the
fact is it has been left untouchedwithout a true understanding
of its nature. It only takes a cursory look tofigure out that
this is a foolhardy battle against an opponent that issimply
a massive monster in the history of thought. Thus, I would ask
thatmy readers keep a sadistic eye on me to see whether or not
I reach somerational conclusion or practical policy by the end
of this essay.
|
|
Technology as a cultural phenomenon
- By taking a casual glance from the handicraft
techniques of the WesternMiddle Ages to the information technology
of today, this historicaldevelopment of technologies seems to
be as neccesary as a dominoeffect and as accidental as the phenomenon
of turbulent flow. One wayyou might look at it is that the technical
achievement of a previous ageleads to the objective determination
of the technical achievement of thenext age, and it is also possible
to see the constant development oftechnique through a multitude
of accidental events that occur inunforeseen and complex ways.
(It is possible to describe the historicaldevelopment of techniques
only with exclusive terminology that isparticular to the field,
making it a kind of heretical genealogy of geniusinventors.)
But to put it in the crudest terms, human beings don't merelyfollow
the logic of technique, there is a silent "choice"
made whenevertechnique has to progress in a certain direction.
These aren't choicesmade by the geniuses who have by chance been
born, they are culturalchoices--the "collective choices
with a particular direction" by choosingroads from a variety
of possibilities, which will eventually lead to today'stechnology.
WEBER saw this sense of direction as "the development of
rationalizationin all areas of Western society," and summarized
the motivation for thisby saying that it stemmed from a religious
ethic; in particular, theProtestant rationality of the Middle
Ages combined with the spirit ofabstinence. Put simply, "To
achieve the goal that God desires of us, humanbeings should choose
methods that produce the best results and remainunclouded by
evil thoughts and conventions, paying especially closeattention
to actions that serve the truth." Of course, "the demanding
goalthat God desires of us" was later secularized to become
"the saving ofwealth," "control of production,"
and "governmental control."
- Be that as it may, where might one look for positive proof
to find out ifone technique is rational and another irrational?
At this point, aninteractive relationship between scientific
thought and technique beginsto emerge. It is often said that
modern Western thought grew out ofDESCARTES and GALILEO, due
to the fact that they developed clearformulas for modern reason
and a mechanical view of nature. Naturefunctions according to
a set of universal laws as if it were a kind ofautomated machine,
and human beings have the ability to understandthese laws according
to the power of reason.
- Mechanical logic and mathematical logic became parts of one
whole, andthey allowed us to objectively understand nature by
deduction with theselaws, and at the same time, allowed us to
use nature by applying them.The accumulation of knowledge concerning
individual, practical andempirical techniques were generalized
into principles that were based onuniversal laws and were applied
to other fields of endeavor. Theseprinciples then became "science,"
and these techniques became"technology." Scientific
knowledge was reflected in technology, and thefindings of technology
made new scientific pursuits possible. Thisinteractive relationship
first emerged from the foundation of commonintellectual methods.
And after this relationship was established, theexplosive development
of technology that followed the IndustrialRevolution began.
While the objective understanding of science spread throughout
theworld, technology could not help but barrel down the road
ofdecontextualization making use of all the possibilities presented
byscience. That is, the notion that a rationality of means leads
to specificends led to the formalization and permeation of rationality
as a searchfor the limits of an efficiency of means regardless
of the ends. Thetechnique as means was given special preference
as a "neutral" existencewithout ends or without valuing
the ends.This means, for example, that while on the one hand
the computer is themost efficient means of control for the powers
that be, it has alsobecome a weapon of democratic change for
anti-establishment andminority figures. In this way, a firm belief
in the neutrality ofinstrumental technology has come to seem
like common sense to us.
Next, let's turn our eyes toward human beings. Man , the Self,
having madehis way to pure reason, stands somewhat apart from
the World. From thisposition, he has come to see the World as
essentially an object to becontrolled technically. In the broadest
terms, the autonomous individualemploys neutral technology to
manage the objective World, which isdetermined by universal laws.
This then is a diagram of the self facing offagainst the world.
In effect, reason, which was purely a kind of intellectualmethod
for Descartes, was transferred to a socio-cultural context andtransformed
into the foundations of our culture, exerting a crucialinfluence
on metaphysical questions such as "What is man?," and
"What isthe World?".
According to MARCUSE, as the basis for advanced capitalism, technologyhas
become the universal form of every kind of material production,
andhas come to define the shape of entire cultures as well as
entire historiesand entire worlds. The upshot being that the
way in which contemporarypeople relate to the world has become
a continuous overture to technicalmeans. In this sense, the world
itself has taken the form of a bundle of bigtechnical questions,
and the only legitimate norm that can be reasonableis no longer
based on religious logic or law. It is nothing more than"technological
rationality."
- Take computer manuals for example. These thick printed texts
withoutany type of decoration are composed of commands and prohibitions
tothe user--"things you must do," and "things
you must never do." When youthink about it, the content
is extremely restrictive and constraining. Nomatter how friendly
the words seem, the statements are written in theform of scripture
or law. Of course, no truths or weighty philosophyexists within,
and neither can the portrait of any supreme ruler be found.And
the only punishment for breaking the law is not being able to
use thecomputer--no one is going to be burned at the stake. Nevertheless,
it isimportant to realize that so many people "voluntarily"
submit to thesedemands. Politicians, capitalists, and people
of every stripe withdeep-set suspicions about the establishment,
all follow without questionthe behavioral patterns and restrictions
that arise from technology.
- As a rule, for someone to submit voluntarily to some kind
of norm, it isnecessary for them to share socially the feeling
that they have chosen"freely" without the use of force,
and to have a legitimate reason fordoing so. For the very simple
reason that they are part of the way inwhich the product was
produced, the commands and prohibitions in themanual are given
legitimacy. There are two beliefs which support thislegitimacy:
"This is as far as technology has come at this point in
time,"and "If I don't like something, I can change
to something else later, or justget rid of the thing." The
legitimacy of the proposition is constantlyrenewed by saving
all reflective and critical thoughts for the future inthis way,
and therefore, allowing the restrictions and constraints to sticklike
a shadow. Norms that are based on technological rationality are
inprinciple always perfectly flawless. There is no reason why
those inpower overlook these norms, the strongest in human history.
Thus, in factcontemporary power is continually de-politicizing
and de-ideologizingitself and acting as a form of "mere"
technical management.Paradoxically, has accepting technological
rationality and internalizing itled to our restriction and constraint,
or on the contrary, has this insteadallowed us to feel even more
free? According to FOUCAULT's reading ofthe situation, "subjection"
is "subjectification." The era of politicalstruggles
concerning the ownership of technology has ended. The erawhen
technology symbolized a visible medium of the class system hasended
too. CHAPLIN uneasily entrusting his body to a gigantic cog,
andsweat-drenched workers feeding coal to a hungry steam engine
in thebottom of the Titanic are both images of the past. This
is an era in whichtechnology, in the form of a commodity, can
be sold to tens of thousandsof people. The more technology sells,
the more human beings can behaveas if they are potentially omnipotent
gods of the world. Today, Cartesianmodern reason is being proclaimed
invalid by metaphysics, but itsurvives not as an ideal philosophy
but as a gorgeously wrappedChristmas present.
- The sketch I have hurriedly attempted depicts the existence
ofcontemporary technology as no longer being outside human society
andculture (it is, therefore, universal and neutral), but instead
shows that ithas become a cultural phenomenon developed within
a specificsocio-cultural context that is in fact an actual historical
process. Andwhat's more, at present, this phenomenon has permeated
every sector oflife on a global scale, and threatens to become
a synonym for the worldor environment as understood by society
and the individual. The placeswe use to question music themselves
indeed belong to this culturalinterior.
|