Re: [microsound] Re: laptop ethics

[jhno <ear@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>So the question is, why are people bored with the category of music
>performances discussed, and not a solo violinist?

i think the main difference is the distancing between physical interaction
and sonic output. the violinist has her hands on the physical objects that
are directly creating the sound heard through physical resonance. her
movements are understood by the audience - e.g. attacking quickly with the
bow produces a louder or more quickly attacking sound... and the emotional
quality of these sonic characteristics match the visual character of the
instrumentalist's gesture, according to some lexicon of universal human
experience...

i think that people can watch vinyl dj's endlessly, because there is a
similar "tight" and "wide" interface between the physical objects and the
sound produced - even though in this case the interface elements are not
themselves the resonating bodies.

move to cd dj's, and it is less interesting to watch, because most people
do not understand the relationship between the buttons and jog wheels, and
the sound produced. the interface is mostly "loose" and "narrow", in terms
of responsiveness and bandwidth considerations.

move to algorithmic systems, and here the performer might move a fader
that, to the audience, has absolutely no discernable effect on the sound.
what the hell is he doing up there, anyway? well, perhaps the fader
adjusted the probability of a random fluctuation in the beat offset of a
loop. sometimes it is just too complex to expect the audience to ever
understand. visual displays can help, program notes can help... but it is
hard to make this type of interface coherent to an audience - especially an
"inexperienced" (non-geek) audience.

with machine performances, as far as i have been able to observe, people
are most interested when the interface is direct and clear... and here
volume faders, crossfaders, and filter knobs definitely qualify.

i think that when i am reprogramming my drum machine on the fly during a
wavelord gig, the audience has some idea of what i am doing (especially
since it is a jomox with big led's for each note). if i am mousing and
clicking on my powerbook to fine tune the loops, i suspect they would
rather watch the real drummer.

anyway, this is all mass culture audience commentary. personally, i enjoy
watching jkc or carl stone sit there calmly tweaking, while i am listening
to the music, even if i don't really know exactly what they are doing. in
this situation it is more like listening to a tape piece (no theater), with
the simple additional knowledge that the music is being created on the fly
and that the performer is responding to the mood of the moment, the room,
etc.

>If the performer is talented in this way, able to successfully
>express his/herself, and this process is not theater enough, then I
>would probably cite cultural biases against technology as the culprit
>for the audience's lack of interest.

i think it is more that they do not understand what is going on. but i also
think that as an audience member, even if i don't understand what the
performer is doing, i can be completely captivated by their performance
just because you get a sort of "sense" of what they are doing, a
subconcsious feeling for the transcendental processes occuring in the
idealized realm of music. i think this occurs through the direct
transmission of information using laser beams, and the human brain as a
transducer, technology which the russians perfected in the 70's as per
philip k. dick's valis, and employed secretly by certain performers in
order to project their memetic space into the audience minds unawares.
jkc's laser system still stores info on 8" floppies, but it works. i seen
it.

hi everyone.
jhno

() ))  (  ((( ))   ) ))))) ( )((()) (  ( ))  ( )  ) (   ((( )  (()( (()
delicate ear                                             ear@xxxxxxxxxx
san francisco, ca                            http://www.sirius.com/~ear