RE: [microsound] Performing "Live">

[Steven Taylor <StevenT@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This thread never goes anywhere... I should know, i was involved last time!
:) 

It just descends into a few people offering biased non-compatible metaphors.
While everyone else is quite comfortable with their feelings on computers
and 'traditional instruments'... Sounds a little facist i know but it still
descends to the level of the age-old "vinyl vs CD" debate at the end of the
day..

> 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>
> >>