Re: [microsound] Money/Mouth

[pelagius pelagius <pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As with everyone else, all comments are my opinion only and meant only in a 
friendly spirit of debate...

> From: Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.

Maybe that tension between the laptop being and not being the source of 
sound highlights the inadequacy of the concept of the acousmatic.


> Laptop performers are still presenting themselves center
> stage, as if it truly matters where they sit during a performance.

That statement is contradictory.  If it truly doesn't matter where the 
laptop performer sits then why do you care if they choose to take center 
stage?  I believe you're implying some sort of political critique of the 
"center stage" position but I'm not clear on what that is.



> 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.

Is there, or is it just a lot of theatrics that allow the audience to 
believe they know what's happening.  Do we really know what's going on with 
that coronet player's lips and breath or do we just trust that something is 
going on up there?  I really belive that there is something that happens in 
a live performance where the audience just KNOWS that creation is taking 
place.  When that happens the performance works and it doesn't matter if the 
instrument is a laptop or if the performer is visible or not.  Sure it's a 
corny idea and I can't back it up with any theory but it works for me.


> I generally think that attempts at demonstrative approaches to laptop
> music are typically either funny or just plain ridiculous.  If you've ever
> seen someone perform with any sort of gesture body suit, you'll understand
> what I mean.

God yes.  Please spare me the Nintendo gloves!


> From: Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hence, the only way to perform that music was through a recording.  ...So I 
> don't think that the academic music has "adjusted" to performances with 
> tape/CD.  It came as a necessity.  And it still is a necessity.

But why is the "performance" of recorded music neccessary at all?  If 
musical performance and the creation of a recording are two distinct 
artforms (like theater and film) why do artists who create recorded music 
feel the need to perform?  Is it merely an economic or promotional decision? 
 Or does the need to perform come from the need for people to assemble in 
social situations like watching movies in a "theatrical" setting?  Will the 
musical equivalent of the movie theater ever become widely accepted without 
a funcional aspect (music to dance to, music as social wallpaper, etc.)  
Perhaps as Christopher was discussing above radio (including web radio) 
performs this function within the artform of recorded music and 
"performance" of recordings in a physical space is unnecessary.


> Romantic assumption, rather.  The romantic period has created the cult of 
> the virtuoso composer/player, the star, the center of attention.

Hmm, this is what I was thinking when I asked a couple of weeks ago about 
the insistence that the cult of the artist is a modernist phenomenon.  Of 
course nobody agreed with me then!  Once again, I feel that there is an 
implied political value judgement when someone talks about "the modernist 
cult of the virtuoso, etc." but I'm not clear on what that is.  I don't know 
enough about postmodernism but I feel like I'm missing out on something 
here.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com