Re: [microsound] Re: Alternative performance devices

[macrosound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

ok...

>>this is part of what makes the old electroacoustic stuff stand out as more
>>interesting. the primitive technology meant you had to work real hands-on.
>>today when everybody is using the same sophisticated software the software
>>controls the composer more than the other way round (i.e. lack of
>>expression) and it makes everything sound somewhat alike and bland.
>>
>>all this force the artist/composer into seeking novelties (or worse, rely
>> on
>>new versions of the software) to stand out rather than developing a skill.
>>
>>i think ;=)

You could just as easily make that same point for other instruments and
even other mediums besides sound.  I think people box themselves into an
aesthetic rather then being limited by their tools.  Tools are tools.  If
you give 10 different *creative* people a couple of beer caps and a
chopstick they will all create something different.

> i strongly disagree with this viewpoint. I believe that computer-based
> performance does not box the artist in to a corner or make them follow a
> certain line. I believe that, just like 'real' instruments it is all about
> parameters. It is just more apparent when a performer is 'playing' an
> instrument in front of you what parameters or sound source they are
> manipulating.

I agree to an extent.  I think this type of response can easily change
depending on the audience and/or environment though.  Consider the 'chill
space' which is rapidly disapearing.  Also, being someone who has played
an instrument made of wood and plastic for 11 years I would have to say
that audience response hasn't differed much whether it be acoustic or
silicon.  People either listen or they don't.  I just play the music.

> eg. There was a post before about preferring laptop artists who use a
> mixing desk to control output.. perhaps because there is that visual
> knowledge of them 'doing' something.
>
> Does this desire to 'know' the inner workings of a performance come from
> the fact that so many of us are creating art ourselves? It has been
> mentioned before that much of the audience for electroacoustic and
> microsound works are composers themselves.

I think there is definitely something to that.  I saw kit clayton at DEMF
and half the crowd was drugged up and confused and the other half were
crowding around him trying to look at his screens.  No one was really just
listening.  He refused to play on the stage, btw.

> Finally, I think that a strong component of computer-based works is the
> source materials... ie. whether a piece is based on field recordings,
> samples of other works etc... I'll leave that one to float in the email
> aether.
>
People always respond to what's familiar.  Biggest crowd responses I've
ever gotten were remixes/axe-murders of pop hits.  I don't do this anymore
though.  It just feels like remaking andy worhol's soup can over and over
again.  I'm curious.  Has anyone else on this list played a show with the
intention of completely alienating the audience?

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