process mystique: sound vs music?

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

i'm a bit iffed with this talk of "hiding the process"...  supposedly
this would be an "intellectual property" issue, but isn't that absurd? 
or then, shouldn't we consider that every song with fuzzy guitar in it
is in fact the property of jimi hendrix?  (or better, all picking solos
copyrighted to eddie van halen?)  if you buy the intellectual property
theory, then please send a check to mr. gabor who thought up granular
synthesis in the 40s, or to xenakis who added up to the idea, or to
barry truax who implemented it digitally...

joking apart, if you want to hide your process, that's fine with me
though i personally don't see the point.  as kim was alluding to,
talking about pita & hecker's live set, there's more to a piece than its
process: a certain amount of skill, imagination & whatnot has to go in
the mix.  even if the process goes into the open, what kind of tragedy
is that?  it only means that the sounds will become more familiar to
more people.  if you think you can become vladislav delay just because
you have his reaktor setups, then you're a tad delusive...

i suppose what irritates me is this reliance on proprietary processes
over portable, open techniques.  so far (at least from what i've
witnessed in this microsonic world) we happen to have good programmers
who are also great as composers &/or performers.  but is that always
going to happen?  are we going to see a trench dug between an elite of
extremely skilled programmers with no clue how to compose an interesting
piece & a bunch of talented composers with no interest in the hardcore
aspects of programming, producing decent pieces from obsolete techniques
& sounds?  no doubt i'd be more interested in hearing the latter, though
the former may be more worth reading or hearing about...  but neither
will be all that satisfying as a complete, current piece of art.

anyway, i have the flu so i don't make that much sense.  but before i
end (& i hope i'm not making myself too much of an asshole): i use
audiomulch as i've said many times, & personally i wouldn't care to give
away any of my setups or samples.  then again, this assessment isn't
going to be taken too seriously since audiomulch is not erm, "real"
programming...  i mean, it has an intuitive interface that's laughably
easy to use & which doesn't give you a headache, so it must be a toy...

~ david

ps: this reminds me of some evening a little while ago when i talked to
paul dolden (who incidentally worked with barry truax in implementing
granular synthesis on digital systems, i.e. computers) & he seemed
pleased to hear that people like me were using granular synthesis as a
"regular" tool for making music, unaware of the more esoteric technical
aspects of it & uninterested by the mystique of the technique.  at the
time (1980-90?) they were developing the technology, the major problem
preventing massive exploitation & experimentation was simply the
processing time.  nowadays with these constraints far behind, is
"intellectual property" playing this role?  ~d