[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: [microsound] influence vs. replica
You are correct, but duality is arbitrary as well. When I say arbitrary, I mean that there are many diffrent possibilities for computing and we have strayed along certain specific paths. A good example of this is memory and speed being set in packets of 4 (usually actually multiples of 16). This is based on early computing models and we just 'ran with it' for the sake of compatibility and function. There is nothing inhereht in the processes associated with computer memory that says it couldn't be divided into multiples of 3 or 7 or some other matter. There were other methods of computing which involved possibilities besides binary, but these sort of fell by the wayside as well.
Elisha <guitarristo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not think there is anything arbitrary about current means
of computation. Binary is another example of duality showiing
up left and right.
---- On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Lance Grabmiller
(praemedia@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> 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 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
>
>
________________________________________________
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!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now