Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[morgan quaintance <plugcs_123@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

bruce tovsky <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:00 PM, W.C Schrimshaw wrote:

>well, i guess i feel that while innate, process should be immaterial
>to the work. be it a painting or an improv sound piece (i do both)
>i'd rather the viewer concentrate on the work. granted, analysis is
>interesting (and fun) but ultimately (and idealistically) i hope the
>viewer loses themselves in the work instead of getting caught up
>in an analytical mindset. not that that ever happens, of course... ;-)

 

This is a very important point, one that i feel i was trying to insinuate in the beggining. I noticed alot of people were intimating that their work could not be seperated from the process. Someone referenced Xenakis, saying that they could not appreciate his music without visualising the mathematical prcesses behind it.

I would like to suggest that this is because Xenakis makes bad music. 

It always confounds me how idm talk so much about their materials, its like they are afraid to admit that what they are attempting to do is make art because then we can judge it as such. I mean when was the last time you heard Matthew Barney going on about his film stock. Or for that matter, when was the last time you heard Autechre going on about the importance of their max patches in the appreciation of their music. 

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




Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com