Trotz zweier wahrlich nicht unwichtiger Veröffentlichungen im vergangen Jahr verschwand eine der interessantesten Persönlichkeiten der elektroakustischen Musik ein wenig hinter Newcomern und manchmal gar nicht so heissem Scheiss alter Bekannter. Grund genug für ein interkontinentales Update über die Zwischenräume von Kunst, Konsum und Körperpolitik. Ein E-Mail Interview mit Terre Thaemlitz.

Verbrauch und ein Dazwischensein

Spex: Was glaubst Du, kann als der dominanter Charakter Deiner Arbeit bezeichnet werden: Musiker, Produzent, Künstler, Autor, DJ?

Terre Thaemlitz: Konsument! Alle anderen dieser Kategorien könnten eine Art Wunsch nach individualistischer oder autonomer Produktion bedeuten. Aber seit meiner Kindheit hat meine Erfahrung mit Musik - besonders elektronischer Musik - immer den Audio-Markt in der ein oder anderen Form miteingeschlossen. Neben meinem kritischen Interesse, diese Marktsituation in vielen meiner Projekte zu diskutieren, bin ich auch Abhängige der Mechanismen des Warenfetischismus, weshalb ich auch gerne spezielle Verpackungen designe, oder farbiges Vinyl auf meinem Label Comatonse Recording benutze...

Spex: Gemäss dem Aufsatz im Inlet von "Interstices" hast Du hauptsächlich zwei Techniken verwandt, um das akustische Material zu produzieren: Framing und Systolic Composition. Welche Chancen und/oder Strategien siehst Du im Gebrauch dieser Prozesse?

TT: Wie Du schon am Ende des Essays sehen kannst, habe ich weder Vertrauen in die Gesellschaft, noch glaube ich an Fortschritt. Politisch bin ich eher daran interessiert, kulturelle Prozesse in der Gegenwart zu definieren, als von einer schönen Zukunft zu träumen - obwohl ich mich der kritischen Ansicht, die immer auch einen Wunsch nach "Besserung" impliziert, auch nicht entziehen kann. Das ist offensichtlich ein Punkt der Frustration für mich, aber auch ein Punkt der Heuchelei, den ich in meiner Arbeit zu umreissen versuche. "Interstices" geht es darum, Diskurse um Begriffe von Dazwischensein (Betweenness) zu generieren - zwischen Sozialgeschlechtern, zwischen Sexualitäten, zwischen Kulturen etc. - zwischen "Naturen" oder "Biologien". Ich diskutiere, wie unsere Interpretation von Biologie immer jegliche "objektive" Analyse verbietet. Ich nahm das Beispiel von doppelter Mastektomie (chirurgische Entfernung der weiblichen Brust, Anm. d. A.) bei Transsexuellen, von weiblich zu männlich (WZM), versus der gleichen Prozedur bei nicht-transsexuellen weiblichen Brustkrebspatienten. Im ersten Fall, werden die Prozedur und die daraus resultierenden Körper von Anwälten und medizinischen Experten entworfen, als ein Schritt weg von biologischer Feminität. Im Fall der gleichen Prozedur, die auf nicht-transsexuelle weibliche Krebspatienten angewandt wird, werden solche Patienten rückversichert, dass ihre Körper später in keinster Weise an Weiblichkeit verlieren. Ganz deutlich kann nicht beides der Fall sein, aber simultan SIND sie es. Es ist dieser Begriff kontinuierlicher Variation, simultaner Auslöschung und Konstruktion, den ich als ein Interstice oder Punkt zwischen Momenten der Definition ansehe. Und es ist dieser Typus Simultaneität und Widerspruch, den ich brauchbar finde zum Dekonstruieren dominant kultureller Konstrukte, wie auch zum Verstehen persönlicher Frustrationen bei meinen Versuchen auf täglicher Basis an irgendeiner Art von Selbst-Definition anzukommen. Aber letztendlich ist "Interstices" nur ein Dokument, eingeschränkt von einem konservativ und ökonomisch angetriebenen Markt. Es ist gewissermassen eine Intervention, aber nicht "direkte Aktion" und daher geht es nicht darum, einen unmittelbaren kulturellen Umbruch irgendeiner Art anzustiften. Darüber hinaus reden wir über eine eher obskure Musikform, die jede Chance auf eine massenkulturelle Einwirkung reduziert. Prozessieren

Spex: Worin besteht Deine Motivation ein Album über "Prozess" herzustellen und welche Chancen oder Schwierigkeiten beobachtest Du beim Arbeiten mit/durch ihn?

TT: Natürlich geht es "Interstices" nicht mehr um den Prozess als irgendeiner meiner anderen Veröffentlichungen, aber ich habe mich dazu entschlossen, dem Text ein wenig mehr technischer Information einzuverleiben. Ich denke, es ist hilfreich, um nicht-technischen Leuten ein besseres Verständnis der Beziehungen zwischen Sound und Inhalt zu ermöglichen. Die Schwierigkeit, besser: Herausforderung, besteht darin, die Wörtlichkeit des Textes mit dem was als "Abstract Electroacoustic Audio" definiert wird, zu versöhnen. Ich möchte niemals, dass meine Texte oder Graphiken einfach nur Wiederholungen des Audio sind.

Spex: Diedrich Diederichsen hat in seinem Essay über Dein Projekt in Spex 09/99 geschrieben, dass es generell davon handelt zu versuchen, kulturelle Prozesse zu komplizieren. Dies geschieht durch das Subvertieren des Spektakels der Melodie und das Infragestellen aktiver und passiver Hörtechniken. Würdest Du dem zustimmen? Und wie gehst Du mit dem Problem des Missverstehens um (da die Dinge kompliziert werden)?

TT: Entweder habe ich diese Zusammenfassung geschrieben, oder er hat sie aus meiner Artist-Bio paraphrasiert. Bez. Missverstehen: ich nehme an, dass jedes Zuhörens bei einem meiner Projekte immer ein Missverstehen miteinschliesst. Rekontextualisierungen und subjektive Interessen, die nicht unbedingt meine eigenen treffen. Die meisten MusikerInnen geben diese Ambiguität einfach als den "universellen Anspruch" von Musik aus - dieser unausgesprochene Subtext, um dessen Klärung sich niemand bemüht, aber der existieren muss, damit verschiedene Leute die gleichen Musiken "geniessen" können. Das ist alles schön und gut, aber es ist Quatsch. Daher wünsche ich darauf hinzuweisen, dass alles ein grosses Missverständnis ist - können wir nun dazu übergehen, uns ein wenig näher zu verstehen? Theorie, Technologie, Narration.

Spex: Da Deine Veröffentlichungen immer komplexe Texte beinhalten, die gewissermassen das akustische Material erklären und zusammenfassen, könnte der Eindruck entstehen, dass Du versucht multiple Bedeutungen zu vermeiden.

TT: Ich denke, das ist eine typische Reaktion auf spezialisiertes Vokabular jeglicher Art. Aber ich versuche üblicherweise die Diskursbegriffe, die ich gebrauche, zu unterminieren, indem ich einen grossen Teil des Textes darauf verwende, Widersprüche von Logik und Wunsch auszumachen.

Spex: Andererseits unterwandert diese Strategie auch Musikmagazine, Rezeption und Schreiben durch den Gebrauch einer hochkomplexen Begriffsarchitektur: Versuchst Du popkulturelle Prozesse zu intellektualisieren?

TT: Nun, es gibt (mindestens) einen dreifachen Nutzen spezialisierter theoretischer Sprache. Der erste besteht einfach im Gebrauch einer linguistischen Technologie, die entwickelt wurde, um bestimmte komplexe Ideen auszudrücken. Sie nicht zu gebrauchen, wäre so wie eine Physikerin zu bitten, sich auf Addition und Substraktion zu begrenzen. Zweitens ist es mein Versuch, Verbindungen zwischen Academia und dem Audio-Markt herzustellen, da elektroakustische Musik beide dieser kulturellen Sphären mit recht unterschiedlichem Affekt bewohnt. Drittens (und durch die Implikation der zweiten) bin ich an einem Wegbewegen vom Begriff des Künstlers/der Künstlerin interessiert, der/die nicht über ihre/seine eigene Arbeit reden kann, und sich ausschliesslich auf KritikerInnen und Presse für die Generierung des linguistischen Diskurses verlässt. Schliesslich habe ich festgestellt, dass beinah 100% der MusikerInnen, die nicht direkt über ihre Arbeit sprechen, nichts wichtiges zu sagen haben.

Spex: Wie denkst Du über die Homophobie-Debatte in der Gay Community bezüglich Eminem?

TT: Davon habe ich eigentlich noch gar nicht so viel mitbekommen - ausser, dass es da sein soll, in der Musik. Mir ist Eminem oder sein Publikum eigentlich auch egal. Let's face it - Popmusik jeglicher Art ist typisch heterosexistisch, soll heissen, dass Queer-Inhalte entweder getarnt oder das Klo heruntergespült werden. Zur Hölle, sogar eine der Rap-Kollaborationen auf DJ Spookys letzter Geffen-Veröffentlichung enthielt homophobes Zeug gegen "Schwuchteln". Was gibt es da noch zu debattieren? Es ist da. Wir können es alle hören. Und anscheinend wollen Millionen Leute es hören. Ich bin nicht überrascht. Ist das zu zynisch? Hmm. Ich komme hier vom Thema ab und bin nicht sicher, ob ich die Energie habe, dies jetzt sorgfältig auszuarbeiten. Daher belasse ich meinerseits diese Kommentare als schlampige Bemerkung.

Spex: Was glaubst Du, könnte der ideale Kontext, Rahmen oder die Community sein, die Deiner Musik zuhört?

TT: Ich verlasse mich auf den Glauben, dass es so einen singulären oder idealen Kontext nicht gibt. Alle meiner Veröffentlichungen versuchen die Prozesse des Verlusts und der Rekontextualisierung, die jedem Prozess der Produktion/der Distribution/des Konsums/des Hörens innewohnen, zu behandeln.

Interview: Christopher Strunz

Info, Kontakt und Tonträgerorder: www.comatonse.com

1097-B 54th Street, Oakland CA 94608-3018 USA.

"Interstices" von Terre Thaemlitz ist bereits auf Mille Plateaux/EFA erschienen.

"Fagjazz - Comatonse Recordings Super Best Collection Presented By Terre Thaemlitz" ist bereits bei Comatonse Recordings erschienen.

NOTIONS OF BETWEENNESS - E-MAIL-INTERVIEW IM O-TON MIT TERRE THAEMLITZ

Trotz zweier wahrlich nicht unwichtiger Veröffentlichungen im vergangen Jahr verschwand eine der interessantesten Persönlichkeiten der elektroakustischen Musik ein wenig hinter Newcomern und manchmal gar nicht so heissem Scheiss alter Bekannter. Grund genug für ein interkontinentales Update über die Zwischenräume von Kunst, Konsum und Körperpolitik. Ein E-Mail Interview mit Terre Thaemlitz.

Spex: What do you think is the dominant characteristic of your work: musician, producer, artist, writer, DJ?

Terre Thaemlitz: Consumer! All of those other categories might imply some sort of desire for individualist or autonomous production. But my experience with music since childhood - especially electronic music - has always involved the audio marketplace in one form or another. Aside from my critical interest in discussing the marketplace in many of my projects, I am also subject to the workings of commodity fetishism, which is why I like to design special packaging, or colored vinyl on my Comatonse Recordings label, etc.

Spex: In contrast to other records from you I thought that "Interstices" might be one of the most abstract ones. Would you agree with that?

TT: Really? (laughing) ...I thought it was more accessible than usual, and the sound rather literally reflected the processes and ideas in the text! Oh well... I didn't mean "abstract" as something which is less accesible to consumers or "far away" from ideas in the text. I share the opinion that the opposite is true. I guess, I just meant with "abstract" exactly this literally motivated act of translation into the sounddesigns presented in interstices. Text-process and music-process seem to share nearly similar grammar, technology, and therefore the sound-sphere might be turned into sth. more "abstract", in the sense of more textual (within the music-process).

Spex: According to the essay in the inlet of your new record "Interstices" you were using two major techniques, processes or concepts to produce the acoustic material: Framing and Systolic Composition. What kind of chances and/or strategies do you see in using these processes?

TT: Well, as you can tell from how the essay ends, I don't have faith in soceity, nor do i believe in progress. Politically, I am interested in trying to define cultural processes in the present, rather than dreaming of a beautiful future - although I cannot escape the notion of critique also implying a desire for 'betterment.' This is obviously a point of frustration for me, but also a point of hypocrisy which I attempt to outline in my work. INTERSTICES, and the processes used in it, is about generating discourse around notions of betweenness - between genders, between sexualities, between cultures, etc. - between "natures" or "biologies." For example, in the text I discuss how our interpretation of biology always prohibits any "objective" analysis of biology. I gave the example of double mastectomy among Female to Male Transsexuals (FTM) versus the same proceedure among non-Transexual female breast cancer patients. In the case of FTMs, the proceedure and the resulting bodies are framed by counsellors and medical professionals as a step away from biological femininity. In the case of the same proceedure being performed on non-Transsexual female breast cancer patients, such patients are reassured that their resulting bodies are in no way a removal of their femininity. Clearly, both cannot be the case, and simultaneously both ARE the case. It is this notion of flux, simultaneous erasure and construction, which I see as an interstice or point between moments of definition. And it is this type of simultaneity and contradiction which I find useful for deconstructing dominant cultural constructs, as well as understanding my personal frustrations with attempting to arrive at some sense of self-definition on a daily basis. But INTERSTICES is ultimately just a document, limited by a conservative and economically driven marketplace. It is an intervention of sorts, but not 'direct action' and therefore not about generating immediate cultural reforms of any kind. Also, we are talking about a rather obscure form of music, which also reduces any chance for mass cultural impact.

Spex: In his essay about the painter Francis Bacon Gilles Deleuze also conceptualizes "the Systole". But he emerges as an oppositional term "the Diastole" as somehting which extends the bodies (in Bacon's pictures), which ultimately dissolves them.

TT: Yes, I guess that is somewhat of an inverted image of what I discuss in INTERSTICES. Without launching into a critique of Deleuze and his bad taste in painting, I can say that my construction of compositions through audio Systole is about retaining degrees of clarity from the original sound sources. In some way, those systolic moments seem to come into focus through their isolation and fragmentation from the original 'body' of an original sound source. In the same way, one might say cultural process - or even beingness - is already about concealment of process and a blurring of constructs, so I am not that attracted to the fuzziness of Diastole. But whether you talk about Systole or Diastole, in both instances I think we are talking about an inability to visualize a coherent or singular cultural object.

Spex: What is your motivation to do an album about process and what kind of chances and difficulties do you recognize in working with/through it?

TT: Of course, INTERSTICES is no more about process than any of my other releases, but in the text I chose to incorporate a little more technical information about process. I think it is helpful to do this in a rather literal way every now and then to help non-technical people better understand the relationships between sound and content. MEANS FROM AN END was also composed along these lines. The difficulty, or I guess I should say challege, is to reconcile the literalness of written text with what might typically be ambiguously-defined abstract electroacoustic audio. I never want my texts or graphics to be simply reiterations of the audio... I want each component of a release to contribute somewhat different discourses around a common theme.

Spex: Diedrich Diederichsen claimed in his essay on your project in Spex 06/99 that it is in general about trying to complicate cultural processes. This is done through subverting the spectacle of melody and the questioning of active and passive techniques of listening. Would you agree with that? And if that is right how do deal with the problem of misunderstanding (because of complicating things)?

TT: Yes, I either wrote that synopsis to Diederichsen or he paraphrased it from my artist bio. As for misunderstanding, I always presume that every instance of listening to one of my projects involves misunderstanding, recontextualization, and subjective interests which do not necessarily match my own. Most musicians simply frame this ambiguity as music's "universal appeal" - that unspoken subtext which nobody cares to clarify, but which must exist since different people can "enjoy" the same musics. That's all fluffy and nice, but it's bullshit. So I wish to point out the fact that everything is all a big misunderstanding - now can we get closer to understanding one another?

Spex: The next question also deals with complexes of understanding: since your releases always include complex texts which somehow explain and summarize your acoustic material, the impression might emerge that you are somehow trying to avoid multiple meanings.

TT: I think this is a typical reaction to specialized vocabulary of any kind. But I usually try to undermine the terms of discourse that I use by spending a great deal of every text pointing out contradictions of logic and desire.

Spex: On the other hand this strategy also subverts music magazines and reception and writing via using a highly complex architecture of terms: are you trying to intellectualize popcultural processes?

TT: Well, the use of specialized theoretical language is threefold (at least). One, it is simply using a linguistic technology which has been developed to express certain complex ideas. To not use it would be like asking a physicist to limit her math to addition and subtraction. Second, it is my attempt to critically draw associations between academia and the audio marketplace, since Electroacoustic music inhabits both of these cultural spheres with quite different affect. Third (and by implication of the second), I am interested in moving away from the notion of the Artist who cannot talk about her own work, and strictly relies upon critics and press for the generation of linguistic discourse. In the end, I have found that nearly 100% of musicians who do not talk about their work in concrete terms have nothing important to say. Also, as a side note, I do have an independent interest in cultural criticism and writing, and so it simply seems to make sense for me to feel free to write about the themes in my audio. However, I do use different forms of writing for different forms of audio. For example, the Fagjazz and Deep House releases on Comatonse Recordings often use campy poems or narratives.

Spex: The track "Superbonus" on your fantastic compilation "Fagjazz" simulates an 'original' jazz live session. Through imitating the marketing strategies of Blue Note Records in Asia you achieve the possibilty of a new minor aesthetical language: Fagjazz. Do you believe in the transformation of jazz as the "music of the left" (concernig class, race, ethnity, sexuality) with this digitital strategy? May there be a political future in these aesthetical-transformating operations?

TT: By this time in history I don't think anyone can claim Jazz as a 'left' or political medium... anyone other than Jazz musicians, that is. (Laugh.)

Spex: ( I think because of a lack in English spelling I must have asked the question in a wrong or too pathetic style. Of course, I also know that Jazz today is anything but a 'leftist' or political medium. But since we are dealing with systems of representation, I just wanted to know sth. about the possibilities that might be in strategies of imitation , "Aufpfropfung" (in contexts), simulation, camp. The production of languages which are minor to these original systems of representation, especially queer languages, vocabularies... but your answer lead in this direction anyway, so...

TT: Oh, i don't think you asked the question strangely. perhaps my answer (and a few others) might be missing some inflection because you are simply reading text. i was assuming you were in agreeement with my first sentence - i just try to start my answers with general statements like that to build up to something more complex. also, i was setting up a bad joke about the ego centrism of some jazz musicians ;) ) That's my point with Fagjazz, is that we are dealing with systems of representation - the entire hierarchy of production is only approachable through alienated and reified means. Those who "believe" in the power of Jazz, or any music, are not questioning those means, either because of a lack of interest or a lack of vision.... At the same time, the histories of Jazz, Electroacoustic, Concrete, Ambient, and other musics I seem to be obsessed with, do contain moments of radical cultural departure with Leftist inklings. None of my music is about proposing the sound of a revolution. It might be better described as the sound of failed reconciliation, disappointment, and ultimately recontextualization into new and possibly 'empowering' audio images which are different from, but not free of, associations with their roots. It is not universal or timeless. It is entirely contingent upon today, with the possibility of being recontextualized by other people now and in the future to serve their own agendas.

Spex: I adore your aesthetical and political attempts to amalgamate marxism and identity politics. What kind of chances do you see in contemporary America to establish political constellations which include both dimensions ("Left waiting")?

TT: None. That is my feeling, anyway.

Spex: What do you think about the debate in the gay community concerning Eminem's homophobia?

TT: I haven't really heard too much about it - other than it seems to be there in the music. I don't really care about Eminem or his audience, though. Let's face it - Pop music of any kind is typically Heterosexist, meaning Queer contents are either camouflaged or put into the closet. Hell, even one of the rap collaborations on DJ Spooky's last Geffen release had some homophobic stuff against "faggots." What's to debate in all of this? It's there. We can all hear it. And apparently millions of people want to hear it. I'm not surprised. Is this too cynical? I guess a few years ago I would have felt really under attack by such things, out of some obligation of aliance with the Gay/Lesbian scene. But these "debates" are launched between communities that I just can't find any real alliance with. Queerness and non-essentialist identities are as despised by the Gay/Lesbian scene as they are by the Straight scene. Hmm. I am getting off into a tangent that I'm not sure I have the energy to elaborate right now. So I'll just leave these comments as a bitchy rant on my part.

Spex: What do you believe might be the ideal context, framework or community to listen to your music?

TT: I rely upon the belief that there is no such singular or ideal context. All of my releases attempt to address the processes of loss and recontextualization implicit in any process of production/distribution/consumption/listening.

Spex: How do you find the reception of your work in Europe/Germany?

TT: Enthusiastic and relatively interested in the theoretical aspects of Electroacoustic audio in general, but at the same time people seem to have a hard time finding my releases if they don't buy them in the first months after release. Although systems of funding through Art institutions are quite different in Europe and the US, and European institutions seem to be somewhat more self-critical, I am still leary of such institutions and try to avoid them as an economic foundation... I do not want to be an Artist if I can avoid it.

Spex: Do you think of ambivalence as something that can be reached, that is produced, or sth. that one may live within without consciously knowing it?

TT: I'm not sure I understand the intention of your question. Isn't Late Capitalist bourgeois society all about the staunch preservation of our right to ambivalence? I think it has done a wonderful job at this!

Spex: That's true. I guess on a micropolitical level I was just thinking about the inner architecture of the concept of ambivalence, and, as you suggested in your essay, that identity is best treated as a strategy, I just thought about how consciously / aware or so one uses the strategy of ambivalence - how one deals/ lives with it. But maybe this leads to nothing at all but ignorance of the macropolitical, repressive present circumstances that limit our social intelligences and desires.

TT: (again, my answer above was a smart-ass turn of phrase and attempted joke. here is my follow up answer to your clarification if you like... the interruption from the doorbell is real!) Okay, I get what you mean. I prefer to remain critical of the term 'ambivalence.' Perhaps what you are really suggesting is a notion of empowerment through a conscious concession to the limitations of a person's or a community's scope of influence? (My doorbell rings and i answer the door, and it is a Jehovah's Witness trying to convert me to her faith.) Now that is a prime example of what we are talking about... she is going door to door and taking direct action based on her abivalence toward other peoples' beliefs. This, to me, is how I see ambivalence working in politics... not as an avoidance of social interaction, but as a cloak which shields us from seeing how we impose upon others. Of course, this concealment of social process is the sort of thing I critique in my projects.

Interview: Christopher Strunz