Mark Applebaum: Intellectual exercise? Timeless art?
I am almost, not quite, saddened by the concept that one can so totally exhaust an instrument or genre, that you must burst into new realms to get that "rush" of something new. Also there is something of an overly self-conscious nature to this music, driven by boredom. Does it have value specifically because it is different from what exists today, not necessarily because it has timeless or intrinsic value?
The difference between noise and sound and music is surely in the ear of the beholder. Although some sounds form a universal language, and in hindsight we deem some music as "timeless" or "classic", for the most part music is a language that we must speak at some level in order to appreciate what we are hearing. If you are separated too far from the artist by time, culture, or language, you may not appreciate the art.
Obviously art evolves - artists create new genres and art forms. If you invent a new genre or artistic realm though, before your audience understands the "framework" in which the art is presented, how can your audience appreciate the art? And if the instrument or medium is so unique that a common language can't effectively evolve, that would seem to lead to a lonely artistic experience where one is not truly connecting with an audience - or only in the sense of titillating the curious or bored or intellectual with something new.
To some extent I am reminded of DuChampe's famous toilet art statement - asking us to question what is art.
Is this more of an intellectual tour de force, or an experiment to push the boundaries of music, or... Do some people really get down with this music?