Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[bruce tovsky <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 12, 2005, at 8:52 AM, W.C Schrimshaw wrote:

> i would be interested to hear how people relate to this idea of 
> separating
> process from product with regard to music, as is suggested below. in my
> personal experience and through conversation with other musicians
> associated with the microsound community, the process is often the 
> piece,
> as much as the aesthetic produced. it often seems that what is new 
> about
> much digitally mediated music is its processual content and the
> problematization of ideas of authorship and subjectivity that these
> processes often bring about.
> to separate the process from the product, to hide the labour behind it,
> would destroy a lot of the meaning that can be recognised in much 
> digital
> art and music.... perhaps?

isn't "process" an intrinsic part of all creative endeavors? and isn't 
science
a discipline that strives to parse the world around us? while i have 
spent
my musical career using the products of science in my creative 
endeavors,
i don't regard myself in any way as a scientist, nor do i consider 
myself in
any way as different from an artist who uses more "traditional" tools, 
such
as paint or a violin. didn't duchamp and cage show us that intent is 
the key?
cheers
bruce

bruce tovsky
www.skeletonhome.com


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