These thoughts are old / Let's keep it cold / Draw lines on me / Dry history / Dryology / That stupid sound / That awful feeling / Don't bring them down / And you never will / No it never will ... ("Made-up Dreams")
That was back in 1997, after "Perfect from now on" came out. I was thinking about all this a few months back, deep within that '90s nostalgia ('90stalgia), when I thought I would look up some YouTube videos of live Built to Spill. There are of course plenty, but one caught my eye: October 24, 1998, at the 40 Watt in Athens. Two thoughts came to mind, almost immediately. First: Hey ... I was there, wasn't I? And second: What if the camera caught me?
Thankfully the camera did not capture me. But then I didn't capture the camera either. Because this is the point: I also recorded that show with my bulky tape recorder hidden in my backpack. So I decided to take out that old tape, my recording of Built to Spill's full show at the 40 Watt, late October, 1998. I listened to my recording, then again listened (and watched) the video version. What I couldn't stop thinking about was not that sound, not that stupid sound, but the fact that I was there, but not there, in that video: I was there but invisible; there, but not within the frame. And then the second fact: my recording of that show captured the inaudible presence of the cameraman and his friend. Both recordings bear witness to something very strange: not something visible or audible, but something a-visual or an-audible. They bear witness to what is outside the frame, to that commonplace elsewhere that happens whenever we record something.
But isn't this always the case with the witness? The witness is always the one who is not there (not an agent on the scene), but who is nevertheless there to record it. Even when there's another witness there to record the scene, the first witness should not be a part of the scene, insofar as the witness or the one who gives testimony is always "the third man," the tertiary, the testimony-giver. But we're no longer talking about a man or woman who isn't there, but rather a sensory apparatus or recording device that witnesses without taking part. The witness intervenes (comes in-between), but still never takes part in the scene. We're talking about the witness as a recording technology that has no real presence, and yet is there, is present, as a presence-less presence. I am the X who wasn't there, not just in the video recording, and not just in my own recording of the scene, but even then, at the scene itself, in the moment it was occurring: the one who is there without being there.
And here's a stupid thought: Isn't that the sound I was always hearing without understanding, that stupid sound that I always found but never grasped? Can sound be ... not quite inaudible, but an-audible, something other-than-audible, para-audible, to the side of what can be heard? What if that stupid sound was not stupid because of its repetition, but rather because it was "dumb," mute, something that cannot present itself through sound. Fine, an impossible sound if you like. Isn't that the point?
Here you go then: One song ("Three Years Ago Today"), one moment (10/24/1998, sometime after 11pm), two recordings (one video, one audio), and innumerable presences that are not at all there:
1) Here's the video of the entire show ("Three Years Ago Today" is the first 5 minutes)
2) Here's my recording, no video of course