Re: RE: [microsound] influence vs. replica

[Beni Borja <beni.borja@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This question in essence would'nt be the difference between working with
sound itself or it's representation??

Music is a real phisical phenomena , it only exists as soundwaves in the
air, everything else is representation , be it dots on a paper, bits and
bytes or smoke signals.

Digital music gave us the opportunity to compose with sound , not with an
imagined result, and although digital music is still very limited and
sometimes irritating , it's a chance we have our predecessors would give an
arm to try out.

Beni


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lance Grabmiller" <praemedia@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <guitarristo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [microsound] influence vs. replica


>
> 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