‘Secronc mies 190 bas str at a ening sere of grees and bg,
aneurin 2d bres. Ges te Wesopea dence amorg care, pop, nd a
ete coi musics, pos dv asset er accu fr svar?
Ts bok exes gers rargng fom eno i eecroseuet mc om gh amb! mu,
cto io nes, and mits ht ct an toca fad seat thay not
‘pose bt esperar understndng ecto ma
Te sbi of decronic miso ue peeing Sounds no crete new sods are wey ao,
‘Ws bok roctes fom ths saring poet bcos how kt muse charges he ye
‘sen nt nto mi, bet sound sel. Te ue of evil ndesate mater te nae,
{id records ad exe que sends hs csr to ecto muse’ Gesicton
‘scl "the comers ht sed set apart msc hm ease wh he ve
rete by he deanperance oe musa ame, dere ees fren he emerge
‘Sime eecbonc muse gees mt cone mscrdably and abscten cf cid. Obes marin
‘hut sont cio as 2 wen pnb to cance les Dj ewok Bt share an
soph toward tng tat copes amet For te extn that he ove
sistent et fe promas fe etie.
“Avett, etait and hugh orockg eect ane ne ofa ee neyo cntenpray
\decrone cereal wats/geres nde teas of regina Kenny at cmect en
ANCHARO CHARTIER, SOUND ARTIST
"Wat and supra Uteng trough he Hose dey rave eect werd expert
fectone mac Demers engages cet oben me bts of cone oun To lero
aor? To mean be? Yo sae or ste wl change be may Youn”
[BRIAN KANE, YALE UNIVERSITY
reson sesetcs, tera a ect oper post 45 mse.
‘Se Assoat Profesor of Masco a fe Unty Sothern Caer.
Qo rmase “
Vist te conganen Web ate twx.oup.com/us/ateningthrougthonoise
For more dean on Oxo Web Mase, wt wwe. exfrdeebrmae com
TSEN 978-0-15-53874b-7
ag05
—Introduction
In some quarters of academia, aesthetics is a disty word. It calls to mind
aspects of Westernintellectual history that some feel are best fell abandoned,
such as ivory-tower professors who spout theories about the good and
‘the beautiful without hoving had much contact with either. For skeptics,
‘aesthetics is synonymous with ungrounded theorizing about the value of|
artworks. The discipline seems unforgivaby suspect because so many works
‘of aesthetics over tae years have considered a small subset of artworks, ine
italy residing in the Wester canon, as standard bearers forthe quality of
act made anywhere, by anyone, and at any ime, While claiming to be an
‘objective measure of what itis that artworks do, aesthetic theory seems
isreconcilably ideological, an instrament for reinforcing the values and prej-
dices that have kept a few artiste and art consumers in comfort, while
‘making sure that many more artworks and artistic practices lurk in obscu-
sity and comparative poverty.
‘Aesthetics is, then, an unpopular pastime, although a few brave souls
sill write aesthetic theory (Danto 2997; Kraut 2007; Kospit 2004; Levinson
2008). Many other scholars have critiqued aesthetis by means of cultural
studies and sociology, disciplines that start not with theories about artistic
merit but ether with empirical data concerning artistic practice. Cultural
studies and sociology seem methodologically sound because they rely on
‘ethnography and :ase studies, techniques that presume to minimize the
author’ prejudice! about a subject and empower practitioners and specta-
tors to speak for themselves, With multicultural, feminist, gay and lesbian,
and postcolonial studies continuing to flourish and generate torrente of4 USTINNG DOUGH TE NSE
ethnographicaly based sesthetos ca
Frere bat Shoei estes cannot help taper out
jssmondhalgh (2007) combines aesthetics with informant testimonies
ion, Kronengolds work (2005; 2008)
[My book presents an aesthetic
since sp8o and does o wilh
sins of such a pursuit, Let
tory or ethnography of electronic music, try whenever, >
woes
Se eco panne
those by Chase (957, Holmes (os), i erg
Hes (so), Manning (a4), Pen
{200} Shapiro (200) an Top Gos ee), Tbe don
IIRCOLCION 5
share knowledge about their music? As such, the sociological method.
focuses on participants rather than observers, An aesthetics, on the other
‘hand, involves more subjective intervention. An aesthetic theorist must
Imerpret forms of expression to yield insights that might not necessarily be
apparent to participants. The questions that this book attempts to answer
include those basic to philosophy, questions that sociology would not neces-
sarily be best equipped to tackle: What is electronic music? What about itis
experimental? What distinguishes it from nonelectronie music? What is
specific to electronic music that is absent in other artistic practices and
‘media? These ate not the sors of subjects that usually deve the discourse of
lectronic-music communities, because participants tend to assume tha the
‘reasons for creating and enjoying thei art are self-evident. Electronic musi-
ans have litle time for contemplating why their music is ontologiealydif-
{erent from nonelectconic music; they may well be more interested in the
traits that make apanticular work unique in and of tet,
While ethnographic methods are invinslc to disciplines like anthro-
pology and cultural studies, aesthetic theory brings something to electronic
‘music that ethnography cannot. Fectronie musi snot one single genre but
rather a nexus of numerous genres, styles, and subgenres, divided not only|
geographically bt lw institutionally, culturally, technologically, ad eco
‘nomically. Because of this breadth of activity, 20 one single participant or
informant can speak about all of electronic music with equal facility. This is
‘where the aesthetic intenpretive subject comes in, an observer who reflects