RE: [microsound] digital sound / digital aesthetics.

[ian stewart <artsonics@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

paul webb:
> what is a 'digital' sound / digital aesthetics??? <

i've always thought that a digital aesthetic would be one founded on the 
advantages of digital technology over other means. with tech we can record 
or sample sounds to use their signifying potential, we can create imaginary 
sounds no instrument can make, we can explore formal parameters like spatial 
trajectories and ambience that are otherwise difficult or impossible. if you 
want to work with mathematical forms so precise that humans can't perform 
them, then digital is probably the way. anyone negotiating these concerns i 
think is working in a properly technological (possibly non-digital) 
aesthetic.

in my opinion there are a lot of things better left non-electronic. 
orchestral arrangements are probably best left to orchestras rather than 
synthesized strings and horns, and lyrical or evocative melodies are 
probably best left to solo cellos. such concerns aren't part of a 
technology-music aesthetic as i think of it.

what a digital-tech aesthetic is vs an analog-tech aesthetic is a different 
question, probably interesting.

paul:
> and why did Ars Electronica change the award catagory
of computer-music to digital-music? <

the term "computer music" is strongly associated with a specific american 
aesthetic, usually based around computer synthesis and practiced in 
university studios. also, ars e probably thought 'digital music' sounds 
hipper (which is true).

best,

ian

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com