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

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



thank you jh.  it would seem that this beautiful argument could connect the thread about mastering to the one about programming.  Assumptions define polemics while choices define art.  Wouldn't it be great to hear a feminist critique of the term "mastering" in this context....


> >In "Derek's academy for computer musicians", 
> >this exercise would be mandatory ;-) Not only 
> >for compressors, but for all those different 
> >kinds of effects where people just download a 
> >VST and happily twiddle the knobs without 
> >knowing anything about what happens under the 
> >GUI.
> 
> why not chip design?  data storage architecture? 
> code/language creation (not merely utilizing 
> previous codes)?  making an iIl-Logic-based 
> digital architecture? (a thousand pardons to the 
> illogik crew in Stockholm now 
> http://www.illogik.com )
> 
> >A while back, someone was aksing if it made 
> >sense to make your own granulator [for example] 
> >in PD even where there were "ready made" 
> >granulators and other effects easily available. 
> >For me, there is so much more potential in 
> >knowing how something works because you've built 
> >it from the bottom up. Software, and the 
> >especially the visual metaphors of software 
> >[take a look at Reason, for example, or Flash], 
> >are so strongly deterministic in making art, and 
> >there is always some parameter, effect or trick 
> >which you will want but the person who made your 
> >program for you never thought of.
> >
> >So this is my rationale for telling everyone to 
> >learn some kind of rudimentary programming, even 
> >if just through PD or MAX. In my mind, it's the 
> >difference between a software user and a 
> >computer artist.
> 
> Yeah, Derek, rants move your intelligence into 
> dogmatic spaces that don't compliment it...  What 
> about a more principled look at this issue?  For 
> example, why the apparent divide between software 
> and hardware?  For each machine, Open 
> source-driven or not, is constructed with 
> hardware -- the most critical to its formative 
> architecture being the processor which RIGIDLY 
> defines what can happen with that tool, and is 
> most often constructed from a deeper (corporate) 
> legacy that is eventually traceable to the 
> post-WWII military-industrial buildup that arose 
> in the belly of Amurika.  Each and every machine 
> and code is deeply rooted in this legacy of 
> controlling the world (to ensure survival of the 
> owner of the machine).  That legacy is traced out 
> in subtle and obvious ways, and it is only a 
> matter of local and limited perception that say 
> it's better to use one or the other.  Wide-spread 
> control and the ensuing restrictions on creative 
> expression, as defined by the hard and soft 
> architectures of technology are pervasive 
> features of the landscape we inhabit.  Code, as 
> one particular construct of language, deeply 
> conforms to the necessities of the social system 
> it is embedded in.  And, as code arose deep in 
> the culture of aggression it certainly carries 
> paradigms that dis-allow creative expression in 
> one form or another.
> 
> Rather than drawing what seem to me -- based 
> partly on the above observations to be arbitrary 
> differences -- exclusionary lines (in what is 
> really amorphous silica, sand), isn't there a way 
> to draw the principles that are inclusive?  For 
> example:  Each instrument has a set of 
> limitations 'by nature' and by social construct 
> that determine use.  'Natural' limitations 
> control the situation -- might be something like 
> blowing into the 'right' end of a horn -- but 
> even that is largely a socially coded value -- 
> why not blow into the other end, you get a cool 
> sound, but it doesn't wake up the troops, and 
> consequently you, as 'experimental' trumpeter get 
> your ass pegged to a wall by one of those sneaky 
> Persians javelins.  It is the social system that 
> determines the acceptablilty of use.  I would 
> even venture to make the observation that the 
> current 'hipness' of Open Source in cultural 
> circles is a development not completely free of 
> larger political influence and even genesis 
> (something that I discovered when researching the 
> 2-decade-old CIA-drenched history of Open Source, 
> for example!).
> 
> Is an individual's creative potential limited by 
> the tool?  I would say NO, but the eventual 
> formal characteristics of the outcoming 
> expression IS defined by the limits of the tool. 
> It is *merely* the process of forming the 
> internal expressive energy into the limits and 
> push that energy through the formative grind, so 
> that something comes out the other end -- and 
> inspires the audience ...
> 
> This is in no way to dis-value your charismatic & 
> creative work, but it does that growing legacy a 
> dis-service...
> 
> (oil on fire? or pissing in the wind?)
> 
> jh
> -- 
> -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> tech-no-mad::hypnostatic:: in Reykjavík, Iceland in darkness
> domain: http://neoscenes.net
> travelog: http://neoscenes.net/travelog/weblog.php
> NEW EMAIL: <jhopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

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