Re: [microsound] laptops kim's article

[kelly <kelly_davis@xxxxxxx>]

Cedric Peyronnet wrote:

> > A "pure sonic experience" is for EARS not for eyes and I've never
> > understand why there is this need "to show what you do"...
> > But it has been discussed, discussed, and discussed before, as you may
> > know.....

"[d.g]" / david wrote:

>
> I disagree. I agree that the last thing the audience should be looking at is
> some spotty lad behind a laptop, but visual stimulus is required -- don't
> ask me why.           ...
>
> the "pure sonic experience" thing is a cop-out.

-------
kelly is writing:

the why is simple. vision is very important to those of us who have it.
take it away and of course you have a sometimes uncomfortable situation,
possibly comparable to an isolation tank - if you can't get into the music,
you're definitely going to prefer looking at the dustball in the corner.
if the sound/music is agreeable or pleasant and the space, that you most likely
saw
when you came in, is "comfortable", then you probably wouldn't have any qualms
with shutting your eyes while being "held" by the sound.

also, "visual stimulus is required"....
could i then say that the blind can't experience live music to it's fullest
or would that be excluded since it is not an option to see?
would then being able to touch something be something
that might be "required" for an experience in place of visual stimuli?
(not attacking here, just pondering)

note cedric (who i agree with here) said "a PURE sonic experience is FOR the
EARS".
i'm thinking the word "cop-out" is a bit inadequate here.


all the best
kelly


=============
http://www.microsound.org/mcdonna/
http://www.disndatrecords.com/dotcoma.html
http://www.earlabs.org/
http://www.earational.org
http://www.artnode.dk
=============
kelly_davis@xxxxxxx
=============