[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] process mystique: sound vs music?

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Joshua Maremont wrote:
> Interestingly enough, the demystification had the unexpected effect of
> focusing my attention away from the screen, as if the banality of
> parameter tweaking had little relation to the sublimity of the music
> issuing from the speakers, and for me it is the latter that is really
> the point of music in any listening context.

Nicely put.  So this mystification draws attention to the process, while
hiding it.  This is a bad thing in my opinion.

I believe that open processes can add to the experience of music too
though.  If I am transforming data from birdsong into the structure of a
performance, knowledge of the process changes the way it's experienced.

> I do not recall that guitargeek Tom Scholz (yes, of the dreaded group
> Boston) was ever chided for not publishing the schematics for his
> little guitar processors (he did begin to sell them later), so it
> seems strange that a nonopensource Oval should be even slightly
> troubling.

I agree.  There is a big difference between obscuring a process, and
withholding software.  One is putting up smokescreens, the other is
choosing not to pass on complete control over your processes.

Even Richard Stallman, the inventor of the Gnu Public License, recognises
that free software ideals do not necessarily apply to music.


A member of the state51 conspiracy
stay still