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

Re: [microsound] Performing "Live">



im sorry, i have to post on this one. to reduce performance with a guitar 
or any other instrument into a simple sound generation device is 
reductive to say the least. in the case of performing the PROCESS may be 
just as or even more important. use of different instruments shouldn't be 
seen as a simple search for new timbres and thats it. to use this logic a 
tympani is the same thing as a harp is the same thing as a splash, the 
only different being the produced sound....i dont think so folks....

m

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:26:14 -0500,
microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote...
>Well Jonah dempcy,
>
>I'd have to say that you entirely missed the most important and pertinent
>part of jason's post. I fact is that the guitar can only make sounds. . . 
>It
>is a two component "synthesizer" consisting of an oscillator (the string)
>and a resonating filter (the body). . . And I understand that you can
>"tweak" the guitar an infinite way. . . And trigger it differently (look 
>I'm
>hitting the string with my thumb. .  oh wait no I'll use a peace of 
plastic
>(imagine the possibilities)). I'm not insulting those possibilities. . .
>It's just that the guitar is simply an organic synthesizer. . . perhaps 
the
>hands on factor makes it seem more versatile to someone who does not know
>the computer inside and out (and I do mean the computer, not programs,
>programs have a limit to what they can do, the computer does not, (that's
>why I write my own programs))
>    So you have given the computer these broad categories of things it can
>do live such as: synthesize ; sample playback ; process sound ; record
>sound. Wile that seems like quite a lot to me, especially compared to the
>guitar ability to resonate. . . that's all it can do.  . .
>    To be honest there are many ways to use a computer with a more limited
>"moment of impact" than other, more traditional, instruments, but this is 
a
>choice of the performer not a limitation. . . I, in fact, see it as a
>benefit that I am not trapped playing the same phrase over and over and 
>that
>is all I can do. Your example of the sequence seems to be a problem you 
>have
>with your sequencing program. . . because there are plenty that change the
>sequence the second you click, tap the keyboard, or tap any number of
>'alternative controllers.'
>    And all of things a computer can do have an infinite "tweekability"
>making each "broad category" an infinite set. . .
>    It seems to me that your putting down of the computer comes from
>ignorance (just like any prejudice), and can only be cured through your 
own
>education.
>
>hugs and kisses,
>v(ance)stevesnon.
>  
>p.s. . . .I get the digest version and wont hear your response till much
>latter.
>> From: "jonah dempcy" <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>
>>