RE: [microsound] process vs achievement

[alex@xxxxxxxx]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Philip Sherburne wrote:
> I'll note only that I saw Oval play once, in Providence, Rhode Island - as I
> remember, it wasn't even a laptop show, but a full-on *desktop* performance

:)

> and yet:  it was a fabulous, and fascinating show - not because of what he
> was doing (as far as i know he could've been playing a cd), but because it
> was completely immersive, sonically.

I can relate to that.  And so suddenly, I find myself unable to argue my
point.  I guess when it's that good you don't need any more information.

But still, bringing an audience into the process is a rewarding
experience, and there is plenty of room for experimentation there.

A personal example, I wrote a script that converts mailing list threads
into sound, while scrolling the subject lines up the screen and flashing
the email addresses of the posters along the bottom.

When it came to performing the piece, quite a few of the participants were
present.  The music charted the whole life of the mailing list, starting
slowly and calmly, and gradually building up to a feverish posting spree.  
It compressed a year into ten minutes of sound.

The text was projected onto a wall, and the list members gathered in front
of it.  They enjoyed reminiscing over the threads as they appeared, and
the slow growth of the list caused them to get increasingly excited until
by the end they were overcome with emotion.  I even got a big hug from a
stranger.

My conclusion is that people really like it if you involve them with the
process..  But I concede that there are sonic depths that may only be
reachable with 'passive' listening.


Alex

-- 
A member of the state51 conspiracy
alex@(state51.co.uk|lurk.org|generative.net|(vx)?slab.org)
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.