Re: [microsound] usefulness of compressors/mastering in experimental music

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gregory Elliott <Spagirus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> >I'd be careful about calling code art, regardless of the
> >sophistication involved.  No doubt this will raise the ire of
> >programmers, but it doesn't exist for its own sake - it has other
> >uses, and aesthetic considerations are not primary.  That alone makes
> >it 'not art.'  Code programmers are closer to artisans than artists,
> >I'd say.  

> I think this is dead on, and I personally agree with most
> of what Matt has to say here. I would just like to add a few
> analogies. Thinking that computer musicians need to know the
> underlying code of their software and to write their own is like
> thinking that good guitar players need to know how to build guitars,
> and not only that, but in fact to only play ones they build
> themselves. 

I guess I'm just nitpicking here, but I think you are exaggerating.
The issue was not that an electronic musician should build a computer
but understand the way a computer (and the software) works.  I
definitely think that an instrumentalist should know exactly how
his/her instrument works.  In fact, those who are best at playing
their instruments surely understand them very well.  Those composers
who understand some instruments very well eventually write music that
sounds very well on those instruments (i.e. Leo Brouwer for guitar,
Penderecki for strings, Varese for brass and percussion, to name a few
examples).

If a guitarist understands the physics of a vibrating string and the
resulting resonance of the instrument's body and he becomes aware of
certain physical and acoustic phenomena which are at play when
performing in such and such a space he will surely be much more
accurate and gain more control over music.  Whether someone else
notices it, is a different story.  A lot of such knowledge is, and can
be, gained intuitively but having a little in-depth knowledge is
certainly a plus.  

> I'm sure most guitar players know enough about their
> instruments to do repairs and such, but probably couldn't build a
> guitar to save their life. 

Because building an instrument involves much more than knowing how to
play it, even if you understand very well how it all works.  Not every
guitarist is a skilled woodwork craftsman with an impeccable knowledge
of various types of woods and proper preparation of them.  

However, many guitarists know how to manipulate the sound of the
instrument (especially if they play electric guitars) to convey what
they want musically, or simply to impress those who know less :)

> The same goes for computers, there are computer programmers
> and their are computer artists, and the two do not have to be the
> same. However, an analogy that I think is more directly to the point
> is relating this to writers. Saying that computer musicians need to
> know the code of the software they use to be good artists would be
> like saying writers need to know the code to their word processors to
> do good writing. 

I don't think this was the point.  I think the point was about being
able construct such or such effect or process by yourself  without
relying on a plugin.  It boils down to some rudimentary understanding
how things work.

> I think these analogies show that the requirement of
> coding skills for good sound art is a bit misplaced.  What I basically
> think Derek's argument comes down to is that knowing how to code is
> going to give someone access to a level of versatility that they would
> not have at their disposal always using software that other people
> make for them. 

Things like PD or ams or even csound use a much higher level of
abstraction than coding your own from scratch.  I think a computer
musician should have some basic understanding of synthesis techniques
and various methods of sound manipulation. those who used modular
analog synths have obviously advantage.  But patching your own synth
or effect in a high-level language such as pd is very rewarding.

> At this point I think that's right, and is a good
> argument for computer musicians to learn a bit of code to expand their
> palette so to speak, if the artist feels like they need to. 

Well, this is in fact a good thing to gain a better understanding of
the computer, overall.

> To require the computer
> musician to have all of the possible software building techniques
> under mastery would be like requiring painters to use all of the
> colors that exist and use all of the techniques of painting for them
> to be good painters. 

Actually, I would refine this analogy to this:  to require a computer
musician to be aware of how to obtain various synthesis techniques and
DSP processes is like requiring a painter to know how to obtain
desired colors through mixing basic colors and knowing what results
are to be expected from various techniques.

../MiS


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org