Re: [microsound] Re: musique cement

[ross birdwise <rbirdwise@xxxxxxxxx>]

"another comment to finish: a good saxophone player
will feel that they
can "play freely" & express everything they want
through their
instrument.  but the truth is, they can't make a
C64-like "BLEEP!!!"
sound even if they wanted to.  yet, the musician will
insist that they
feel "free" to play what they want.  they will not
have the feeling 
that
they are, in fact, repeating figures, sentences,
tricks that they have
practiced, prepared, thought of hundreds of times
before.  freedom is,
as ever, a very relative thing."

I think the saxophonist might be able to make
something C64ish bleep-like perhaps through some sort
of new technique or by 'preparing' their instrument in
some way, perhaps even through electronics.  If the
saxophonist used electronics I think you might get
into questions about what constitutes the limits of an
instrument, or you might have to consider how the
system 'saxophone + electronics system' produces the
bleep sound.......I agree with you that freedom is a
relative thing.

I think that the computer physically limits the
relationship that the player of the music has to the
sound outputed relative to a 'real' instrument.  I'm
not taking sides on this issue.  I think that each
practice has advantages and disadvantages and that
what you get out of either practice partially depends
upon the type of person you are, and/or your
expectations of the medium.

r.

--- david turgeon <dt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  it's like trying to have a conversation with
> someone but only being allowed
> > > to recite prepared sentences.  I want to talk
> freely.  is that a good
> > > enough reason?
> 
> correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i understand,
> a good part of the
> things you & i say are "prepared" in some way,
> otherwise your brain
> would be working way too hard trying to reinvent the
> wheel all the time.
>  what your brain does is patching up pieces of
> possible conversation in
> order to form more or less what you mean.  (but
> maybe someone better
> versed in linguistics can precise/refute this?)
> 
> that of course doesn't say anything of the fact that
> nobody can ever
> "talk freely" without learning of vocabulary &
> grammar basics, or even
> inventing their own rules.  meaning certainly does
> not come out of thin
> air...  this continues the analogy with the computer
> which "learns"
> sounds & methods, which you can trigger later on as
> you think of
> something you would like to have it "say"...  the
> more relevant data you
> have, the more precise you can be.
> 
> computers will allow you to "talk freely" only
> insofar as you teach it
> the vocabulary & grammar you need.  in that sense,
> it isn't so different
> from our own capacity of making sense through
> speech.
> 
> another comment to finish: a good saxophone player
> will feel that they
> can "play freely" & express everything they want
> through their
> instrument.  but the truth is, they can't make a
> C64-like "BLEEP!!!"
> sound even if they wanted to.  yet, the musician
> will insist that they
> feel "free" to play what they want.  they will not
> have the feeling that
> they are, in fact, repeating figures, sentences,
> tricks that they have
> practiced, prepared, thought of hundreds of times
> before.  freedom is,
> as ever, a very relative thing.
> 
> have a nice day
> ~ david
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

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