I overall appreciated how the reading emphasized music’s inextricability from the body. Because we grew up ensconced in Western philosophies (pointing fingers at you Plato & Descartes & Kant), I believe we, albeit subconsciously, mistakenly divide the mind and the body. The lofty Mozart-esque realm of music seems more associated with “the mind” while dance belongs to the realm of the body, but if we look within, I believe we all intuitively understand that the gap was never there. But the historical assumption of that gap is why this reading exists in the first place, which it outright acknowledges: “I am arguing that a significant component of such a process occurs along a musical dimension that is non-notatable in Western terms – namely, what I have been calling microtiming.” That’s why I had to laugh when I read: “Though these arguments are quite speculative, it is plausible that there is an important relationship between the backbeat and the body, informed by the African-American cultural model of the ring shout.” Modern academia – always the cautious skeptic, for better and worse. Also always the exclusionary imperialist. Like, oh you finally caught up! (Not speaking to the reader, just speaking in general.) The idea of the drum set as an extension of the body makes complete sense. The bass drum at the feet, stable and steady. The snare at the hands, which, with their greater dexterity, can more readily linger or attack, flavoring the music, giving it “that feel.” Literally our feel.

There were some phrases I really liked that particularly spoke to this: “It is a miniscule adjustment at the level of the tactus, rather than the substantial fractional shift of rhythmic subdivisions in swing.” I also loved this quote: “It seems plausible that the optimum snare-drum offset that we call the “pocket” is that precise rhythmic position that maximizes the accentual effect of a delay without upsetting the ongoing sense of pulse. This involves the balance of two opposing forces: the force of regularity that resists delay, and the backbeat accentuation that demands delay.” I also love how everything “seems plausible” hahaha. I also really loved this phrase: “bears the micro-rhythmic traces of embodiment…”

I was thinking of a couple things. One, what is the source of the pulse? Our breathing, our heartbeat, walking, running, how rocks feel on a hot day. Two, the main point of the reading, how to reconcile computers with the music of our bodies. The reading goes into several methods people have used to do this, the best of which, to me, was when it went over how DJs sampled songs by scratching records, and how the music is the material manifestation of the movements of the hands themselves. See here: “…bears a direct sonic resemblance to the physical motion involved” and “causing it to refer instead to the physical materiality of the vinyl-record medium, and more importantly to the embodiment, dexterity and skill of its manipulator.” These are just really great observations.

So when it comes to computers? Where to start? I had a conversation with dad I still remember a year ago. He said our phones are stupidly made because they’re made for our eyes, to please the Kantian aesthetes in us hahah. If they were really made for our hands, they would be designed like small conch shells. Look at the antiquated wall phone, how slenderly it wrapped itself inside your palm. I’m trying to say that the devices we use today were not built for us. (The divorce we made between the body and the mind is hurting us.) The computer is inherently disembodied, and we all know this. This is why I really like hyper pop, because its very sound contains the shifting disembodiment of a generation, yet, our inviolable presence throughout. It is us dancing through the divorce hahah. None of this is bad, it all just tells the story. So yeah, I’ll employ the tips and tricks the reading offered. Mostly, I will focus on the computer’s liaison with my hands.