Re: [microsound] just a tiny question

[Lance Grabmiller <praemedia@xxxxxxxxx>]

anything like these two programs been developed for windows or OS?
lance
www.praemedia.com
 
 jim altieri wrote:Howdy all,
About his computer generative procedures: In the late-80's, he used two
computer programs, among other stuff, to help him determine compositional
decisions. These programs - tbrack (for his time-bracket pieces) and ic
(for general i ching oracle consulting), were programmed by Andrew Culver.
Several years ago, one could find them on the net with a little searching.
They're simple DOS programs, tbrack.exe and ic.exe. I think the source code
(in BASIC) might actually be in an appendix of MusiCage, but I'm not sure.
I think Cage was very difficult about ownership. I can't remember the
specific circumstances, but he definitely referred to improvisatory
performances of his pieces as "nice, but not my piece". For me, though,
many of his pieces and lectures index the listener's ownership of any
individual musical experience. He kept on putting himself (or letting
others put him) in the role of a guru, so this is why his contradictions
seem so hard to deal with. But, he was an artist - shouldn't we expect
contradictions and doublespeak from artists?
As for what we think of Cage - well, I bet you'll get as many different
answers as you have listmembers. The standard responses are: "He was a
great philosopher, but I don't like his music," "He is the the godfather of
all experimental music ever to happen again," and "Sorry, I don't watch Ally
McBeal." Personally, I like most of his music, don't like some. His
philosophy went really far in pointing out the un-necessity for controlling
or imposing one's intention on a piece of music. But I wish he went
further. People like Pauline Oliveros and Alvin Lucier came to similar
conclusions about chaos and non-intention, but were able to use their
conclusions as creative and liberating springboards, whereas John Cage
seemed to be a bit petulant and nihilistic at times.
What do you all think?
-jim

http://www.tweeg.net


on 10/3/02 2:35 PM, Lance Grabmiller at praemedia@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> generative music: I, not being a programmer (and simultaneously being on PC),
> don't work too much with generative music, but have applied "chance" to
> compositions through "dice games." Very Cage, and DIY generative music sort
> of. Assigning numbers to various parameters and/or sounds. Similar to Cage's I
> ching compositions. I would like to know more about the specific details of
> how Cage used the i-ching, and see some examples of the "charts" he spoke of
> when composing in this fashion, but can't find much detail.
> 
> Being less of a performer than a composer, my interest in applying modern
> composers ideas into computer music has come from musique concrete (henri,
> schaeffer, ferrari, etc., etc.). I think they are EXTREMELY applicable to
> computer music.
> 
> lance
> 
> www.praemedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tone0010@xxxxxxx wrote: sorry to harp on an old topic, but I was interested in
> lance's question of
> what microsound thinks of cage, especially in the generative music field,
> which seems to come from Cage's theories, yet seems almost violently against
> the concept of creative ownership. I've heard that Cage disliked
> improvisation.... maybe he wasn't so against ownership, just a loose
> application. All in all, I think others know much more about the whole thing
> than I do.
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!