[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

interesting to read this as I had some of the same thoughts in response to the comments on programming versus utilizing available software in composition/performance.  But, if you're going to use analogies (I tend to think that way too), another interesting thing to look at is Arnold Dreyblatt's notes on his early work which involved intense investigations of acoustics and sound productions utilizing the techniques of early instrument builders.  He makes a lot of really interesting points about how musicians have lost the knowledge preserved by instrument builders (the craftsmen referred to elsewhere) and the effects this has had on the practices of composition and performance.  I like Arnold Dreyblatt's music, but I have to say that his generous revelations about the evolution of his thought and practice have had more effect on my own thought and practice than hearing that music could ever have had.  I highly recommend checking his writings out on his website.  The application of min
imalist (Tony Conrad, Charlemagne Palestine, Pauline Oliveros, Henry Flynt {another generous note-taker}) and post-minimalist (Dreyblatt, Rhys Chatham {his writings are also intriguing and thought-provoking}, Phil Niblock) techniques and approaches to issues like tuning to computer music has yielded some very interesting results for me in the beginning stages of working with computers to make music.  I think an interesting question to pose within this thread is "Which is more important, and intimate knowledge and understanding of the code used to produce sound, or an intimate knowledge and understanding of sound itself (in terms of acoustics and human perception)?"  Would one have to have a PHD in psychoacoustics and computer science to produce worthy tracks?  Can one be a snob and a slob at the same time?  Take a look around your brain and your bedroom before you answer that one.    Love, MHW
--- Begin Message --- 
yes. i agree. I also think that the truth is seen of the loudspeakers for outside.
 
Saludos, Mika Martini

Gregory Elliott <Spagirus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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'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. And I'm sure there are a lot of computer musicians that are analogously crafty with software (i.e. in that somewhere in between place that Matt mentioned). One wouldn't expect the guitar thing to be any other way. In that case there are guitar players and there are guitar craftspersons, and the two may never be the same. 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 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. 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. However, Derek seems to go from there and make such versatility a requirement for good computer based sound art, which I think goes too far and would agree with Matt that often limitations are a tool for the artist as much as their chosen medium or media. But there is so much that can be done with software that's already made that it hardly seems like this limitation tool would even come up. 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. Sorry for the folks that don't like analogies, that's how I tend to think on these issues.

Greg


http://spagirus.ivdt.net




_____________________________________________________________
Get FREE Email and FREE Websites at
http://www.chaosmagic.com

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



------------------------------------------- 
[M!M] [SCL]
[www.mikamartini.scd.cl]



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.

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