RE: [microsound] herbs&spice and everything nice

[paul webb <paulwebb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

a difference is that with a computer the 'how 
they are doing it' part can be more down to the
machine.(a universal machine.) - I think you have to
imagine that its as though you are seeing the Jackson
Pollock without even knowing about paint and painting
in the first place,

paul




--- Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: anechoic [mailto:kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >
> > any for anyone who doesn't believe that the "tool
> is the message": please
> > don't come up to me and ask me what software I'm
> using or ask to
> > see my Max
> > patch after I perform...the need to know this is a
> clear indication that
> > the software was very much part of my
> performance...
> 
> I'm curious about this comment, because even when
> performers are playing
> traditional instruments, for example, Taku Sugimoto
> or Milford Graves, but
> have an incredible diversity of sound, I feel
> compelled to ask them how they
> are doing it.  In essence, "how are they using the
> tools they are using?".
> Sometimes it is physically and visually obvious how
> people are creating
> sounds on stage, and sometimes not.  When you watch
> a painter use a brush
> and paint, you don't automatically "get" everything
> the painter is doing to
> utilize his or her tools.  Is it really any
> different with a computer?  Or
> is just more likely that someone walks up and asks
> you about software
> because you're essentially staring at the back of a
> piece of formed plastic
> for the entire performance?  And if that is true,
> then what kind of message
> is a guitarist delivering, considering his tool?  Is
> the important, relevant
> message that is being delivered the message that the
> tool indicates?  It
> would be difficult to hear the same message in
> Spanish flamenco guitar
> compared to Mississippi Delta blues.  Or does this
> theory only apply to
> computer-generated music?
> 
> "Tool is the message" seems to be a very broad
> statement.  "Oh, he's a
> painter.  He's using paint."  That doesn't really
> tell anyone much about
> what meaning any painter is trying to convey,
> really.  Jackson Pollock could
> be a house painter with that kind of information. 
> He used house paint and
> large brushes.  It isn't that I disagree with the
> concept.  On a fundamental
> level, people write (books, letters) because it has
> an aura of authority.
> Letters have a personally authoritative aura, books
> an academic aura.
> Delivering a bank note is different from a "Dear
> John" letter, although they
> maintain that aura of ownership and can be
> constructed in the same manner.
> So isn't the content relevant?  What about the text?
> 
> "Algorhythmic".  Never rely on the computer to do a
> thorough spelling check.
> 
> __________________________________________
> Christopher Sorg
> Multimedia Artist
> Adjunct Professor
> The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> http://csorg.cjb.net
> csorg@xxxxxxxxx
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.314 / Virus Database: 175 - Release
>