Re: RE: [microsound] influence vs. replica

[Lance Grabmiller <praemedia@xxxxxxxxx>]

First of all, I think it would be helpful to say what you mean by 'neanderthal human interface.' Given that we're not much more than that, then any 'neanderthal' interface would suit our need perfectly. 
Additionally, you're right, humans don't think in bits and bytes, but why would we? Is it better? You have to keep in mind that the 'bits and bytes' way of processing was pretty much made up of a whole host of arbitrary decisions and happy accidents. The history of computer processing is all about human intention stumbling its way rather clumsily through and idea which is still relatively clumsy. 
Had a few more of those loveable nuts been smoking a different weed or worked on a different problem, then we may not have had 'bits and bytes' to talk about. Could have been some other way of processing entirely. Have to say this binary system is rather a bit too simple. It is every bit as neanderthal as we are, and every bit as neanderthal as Bach's quill pin scrathcing away on the paper.
 
 Elisha <guitarristo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> J Larsen wrote:
> 
> the digital way of making music is more indirect than other 
forms. a
> computer with its neanderthal human interface will act as a 
filter of
> the composers intentions, in reality enforce a strict 
limitation on the
> composing process and detach the composer from the listener.
> 
> Dave Fodel wrote:

> this is a bunch of hooey.
> 
> as a composer, how do you even know what my intentions are? 
if my intentions
> are to look at a waveform and act on that waveform based on 
what i see, what
> more "direct" way to realize my intentions than with a 
computer, in spite of
> its "neanderthal human interface".
> 
> i have no musical background at all. requiring me to compose 
with some
> traditional process imposes a much stricter "limitation on 
the composing
> process" than any computer ever did. with a computer in my 
hands i have
> become a composer and producer of music (perhaps to the 
dismay of some
> unsuspecting listeners out there).
> 
> and as far as being detached from said listeners, your 
statement confuses
> me. if i were forced to compose something by writing down 
notes on paper for
> a bunch of physical instruments, how does that better connect 
me to a
> listener? as it is, i can compose something, produce it, and 
distribute it,
> all within that same neanderthal interface, and have 
listeners from around
> the world send me feedback on my work that very evening. how 
does that
> qualify as "detached"?
> 
> i am happy that you are now seeking your inspiration 
elsewhere. i hope they
> have better laptops there.
> 
> 
> 
I mostly agree with you Dave, however I do think computers have 
neanderthal human interfaces. In fact, I once wrote a short 
story from the perspective of a computer. It was all about 
it's frustration at attempting to communicate with human 
beings. There is only so much data we can manipulate at a time 
with fingers. But it is direct manipulation. When a person 
arranges something for a bunch of instruments to be played by 
humans they have control only insomuch as the musicians stick 
to the page. This is not very direct. Anyway, my point is 
that human interfaces suck because humans don't think in terms 
of bytes but there is nothing to compare it to, yet.

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

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



------------------------------

Lance Grabmiller 
www.praemedia.com

------------------------------


 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site