Re: [microsound] audio software environments

[Michael Wright <m_wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12 Oct 2004, at 15:03, Anthony Saunders wrote:

> Also a Roads piece of granular synthesis from the 70s or 80s gets a 
> different consideration than a Roads piece from today. Context is 
> important.

I totally agree, but where are peoples excuses nowadays?  This is a 
section of an interview with Brian Eno.

The great benefit [of tools like Cubase] is that they remove the issue 
of skill, and replace it with
the issue of judgment. With Cubase or [an imaging program like] 
Photoshop, anybody can actually do
anything, and you can make stuff that sounds very much like stuff you'd 
hear on the radio, or looks
very much like anything you'd see in magazines. So the question becomes 
not whether you can do it
or not, because any drudge can do it if they're prepared to sit in 
front of the computer for a few
days; the question then is: of all the things you can now do, which do 
you choose to do?

I can see the necessity of trying brand new methods of process to try 
and exceed what exists and find new sounds in the same way Curtis Roads 
does.  But a lot experimental electronic musicians still persist to 
prove the worthiness of their music with a whole speech about the 
process.  If the only thing we are dealing with is sound then the sound 
should speak for itself.  A technical insight is like admitting the 
sound doesn't work.  This is my original question and i'm asking this 
from the point of view of a naive "newbie" who looks to the past and 
present for inspiration.  Should we take the technical process into 
consideration when "listening" to electronic music?  If the answers yes 
then surely we are creating an art form that exists independent of 
music and has equal interest in computers?  It seems the ones that are 
benefiting from this whole thing are those with the perspective of the 
eno quote.  Those who take the tools, do what they have to do and move 
on.