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

Re: [microsound] Money/Mouth



On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:41:47 -0500 (CDT)
Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just to try to steer something back on-topic...here goes:
> 
> I realize this discussion has come up ad-nauseum, but I think there are
> some things about laptop performance that I haven't seen discussed (at
> least in the last year), especially in regards to acousmatic music, 
> tape pieces, etc.  Keep in mind that much of what I'm saying is, of
> course, IMHO.
> 
> I would suggest that the "acousmatic" (see
> http://www.filmsound.org/chion/acous.htm for a definition) tradition (from
> the greek philosophers to musique concrte and beyond) would probably be
> the most fruitful exploration of this idea;  I think it has been put into
> practice for much longer any sort of laptop experimentation.  Certainly,
> academic music has "adjusted" to public performances of tape/CD
> music.  This hasn't really transferred to "pop" origins of laptop music.
> 

Well, it's not quite so simple...  Acousmatic music made with computers for concerts (true, mostly academic) has been on the program since the 70's (even 60's).  The 80 have seen some interactive performances (instruments + personal computers) even if they were much more limiting then they are today.  However, many composers were involved in such sound explorations which were impossible to do in real-time (I remember a talk @ the university I attended with James Tenney in which he played a 3 minute piece which took _days_ to render in the Bell labs in the early 70's).  As the technology was improving and offering more flexility and computational power the demands on sound and instrument design were were getting more serious and even more demanding.  Hence, the only way to perform that music was through a recording.  Aside from the fact that the tradition of 'acousmatic' performance was solidifying, especialy through the french "school" of acousmatic composers.  So I don't think that t
he academic music has "adjusted" to performances with tape/CD.  It came as a necessity.  And it still is a necessity.  Some of the works are so complex (as the academic tradition of 'classical' music is being carried over from academic generation to academic generation) that they are being created over long periods of time.  Also, some of the instrument design is so demanding that it still takes hours (but not days!) to generate.  Some things cannot be done in real-time and not everyone wants to use samples only for the sake of doing a live performance.

As far as 'pop' goes, we all know that popular music requires a fast mass production so long periods of time needed to compose a good 'tape' are out of question.

> In some ways, there really isn't a way for the laptop to *not* be
> acousmatic. There is no way to directly indicate a source for the
> sound; the source *IS* the laptop, but it isn't at the same time.  For
> samples, the source is actually instruments, cars, voices, etc.  The
> challenge is the abstraction that the laptop represents; performers are
> presenting themselves as the originator (acoustic), yet the source itself
> is acousmatic (hidden from view).

yeah...

> 
> Music and musical performance, at least in a popular framework, still
> remains convinced of the artistic genius, the modernist
> assumption.

Romantic assumption, rather.  The romantic period has created the cult of the virtuoso composer/player, the star, the center of attention.  In fact, the genius and then the advent of the focus on the grandiosity of an orchestra + composer + conductor contributed to a greater division between types of music and musicians.  That's where the music for the aristocratic circles intensified.  Yes this has always been present:  in the medieval era only the church had the power to use music and only the monks had some sort of knowledge about the music, that carried on to renaissance, baroque was marked by both church and secular music in the court which became an obsession in the classsical era.  There have always been musicians with the people but it mostly in the sense of entertainment (this hasn't changed much, has it) and not much of their music and poetry survived, mostly because they could not read/write.  However, the most famous example are trubadours (and, interestingly, trouveres, a
ristocrats which were closer to the 'people' and used to jam with the common peuple).  So the music has always been kept in the 'higher spheres' and late romantic tendecies contributed to the 'mysticism' of a composer/artist.

This for some reason got carried over to the 20th (and 21st) century, both in academia and in the pop culture.

>  Laptop performers are still presenting themselves center
> stage, as if it truly matters where they sit during a performance.  For
> the acoustic performer (or even electric), there is a direct correlation
> between the producer and the product; a coronet player blows his horn and
> a sound results.  For the laptop performer, there isn't just a lack of 1-1
> correlation between act and action.  There actually is no correlation
> unless it is invented.  Pushing a button or moving a knob will never
> relate the same thing between performers, so there is no connection, no
> language, to learn about how the sounds are produced.

It is true for many performances.  Especialy in the 'pop' situation.  The academic laptop/desktop musician tends to go differently about it although lately I'm not so sure.  The nob twisting/button pushing has been already discussed/ranted/flamed here so I'm not going to go into that except...  I would not say that I'm an expert in laptop performances.  I haven't done that many and I haven't seen too many either (but quite a few).  But from what I've experienced I can see (sometimes) a correlation between gestures and sounds.  [a side note:  only in situations where some other device than a keyboard+mouse are being used].  Banging on <insert-the-mysterious-device-name-here> always produces percussive sounds or sharp attacks or in some way excites the *amplitude* of the sound.  That's very natural I guess.  Scrubbing <insert-the-mysterious-device-name-here> usually produces changes in the spectrum (mostly resonant filters of sorts) or sample playback speed/direction.  This is natural, 
too.  Nob twisting (or whatver they're twisting) is mostly associate with some amplitude and/or spectrum changes and sometimes the sounds frequency.  This is another 'natural' way of controlling the sound.  So there is a correlation between an action and a resulting sound.  But, as you have pointed, that does not tell us anything about the origins of that sound.  However, this is an important fact because it shows that there are certain tendecies in the use of computers/controllers.  As someone has stated here and restated that "the medium is the message" (or something like that, somebody correct me, please).

> 
> [...snip...]  The laptop is no longer an
> issue; it may as well be a CD player.  These tactics don't really address
> any of the interesting issues that the "laptop as instrument" problem
> introduce, rather, they tend to recreate this rock-star attitude.  And I
> do think that the problem is interesting and deserves more focused
> attention.

Well, IMHO, this problem is somewhat analogous to the rock-star/guitar-god syndrome of the 80's.  Except that the guitar gods of the 80's _did_ have a certain set of skill (no matter how cheesy in terms of application in some cases) whereas I don't see how you could say that someone with a laptop is worth seeing for his fast fingers or whatver (BTW, my GF can type 100 words a minute but I would not encourage her to go on stage with her laptop to do that!).  So i think that this attitude is simply a left-over from 'stardom' times (like the 19th cetury, the 50s, 60s, 70s etc all the up to Celine Dion and Shakira).
> 
> It's also interesting to think of other ways that the audience is engaged
> in these sorts of shows; by using video projections.  The concept of the
> acousmatic, as introduced by Pythagoras, was to remove all
> distractions; to focus on the sound, the content of the speaker.  Video
> typically serves to further the distraction in laptop performances.

well, this used to be called multimedia.  I don't know what the modern jargon for this is... multi-sensory experience, i've heard recently :)

>  In
> only two instances have I seen the video somewhat directly relate to the
> sound being produced, first, in a Carsten Nicolai performance, where the
> pong-like graphics move in relationship to the sounds.  In this, I think,
> the relationship appears to be tenously arbitrary.  I had an incredible
> experience with Coldcut's AV shows, too.  Form and content were so tightly
> wound together.  In the other instances (for instance, Plaid), the video
> seemed to serve merely as a distraction from the completely unremarkable
> activity of clicking a mouse behind a laptop.

Yeah, in the other instance we saw Alex B. constructing his MSP patch in real-time and someone else running DP3 and we could see that the screen wasn't updating properly.  Looks like DP3 is such a memory hog.

> 
> At any rate, there is a lot here to explore.  Some of it, of course, is
> opinion.  Some people *need* to relate sound to source during a
> performance; I suppose they feel that is what they pay for. 

depends what kind of performance.  Don't tell me that when you're on the dance floor you peek at the DJ to see how he's constructing his bass line :)

> Yet people
> purchase CDs, listen to the radio, and go to huge concerts where you can
> barely see the performers, much less their instruments.  So I think there
> are other possibilities.

that's different.  That's consummerism (is this a word?).  Our culture has has been convinced that it is important to collect various objects including CDs so you can listen to your 'idols' whenever you wish.  The radio simply helps you choose your next purchase.  And it's the same marketing strategies that make people people believe that it's ok to spend $500 to see Celine on her last show (2years ago) before the 'sabbatical' (he he) singing with a little tear in her eye on a heart shaped stage.  You certainly couldn't see the tear in the show but after, when you saw it on the 11pm news you feel so thrilled.  [a side note: what am I saying?]

> 
> In preparing for a radio show, I had the recent revelation that I
> don't have the sort of challenges that I normally face in a live
> situation.  You can either be a passive or active (preferable) listener,
> but you certainly aren't going to be *looking* for anything.  It was a
> radio-programmer whose opinion that much of the work (laptop audio, that
> is) actually comes across much better on the radio than in live
> performance. Perhaps more laptop musicians should get shortwave licenses or
> start 98.7 WIDM or something...

Yeah but they wouldn't get free beer, water, food, girls and all that.
I like to see a performance.  But make it either interesting for the ear or put on a good show.  I'd rather listen, though.  Also, my radio is pretty crappy so I generally get a better sound in a concert.

just my $0.02
-- 
../MiS

Michal Seta		http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/mis
CreaZone		http://www.creazone.com
No One Receiving	http://creazone.eworldmusic.com/doc/nor

upcoming release:
NOR - "The Release of the Wandering-Eyed Girl"
	http://www.grainofsound.com