Re: [microsound] tools vs. aesthetics?

[Kassen <kassen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

andrew benson says;

> While I agree that it's good to check the gear-talk
> once in awhile, I feel that it is vital to discuss and
> consider our tools as an integral part of our
> aesthetic.  The beauty of working with digital sound
> for me is the accessibility of building custom tools
> that will do new and unique things.  This is very
> difficult to do with acoustic instruments.

I´m realy not sure this is true.
Acoustics have a couple of basic "noise making thingies" such as strings,
variations of flutes or reed instruments, "things to hit" perhaps a
soundboard or two. Digital synthesis has equivalents of these in the form of
algorithems and general pricniples. You can read or write a table or two,
you can calculate a function, and so on. Completely, fundamentally, new ways
of generating sound don´t grow on the trees in either field.

Combining some of those options in either field is quite easy, attaching a
rubber band to a cardboard box is not that much harder or simpler then
attaching two Csound opcodes to eachother. Making a realy instrument that is
both unique to some degree and keeps it´s interest over a few years of
practicing playing it and that opens stimulating compositional avenues is
quite hard in either field.

At least that´s what I think.
I admire people who try building something new in either field and enjoy
their music in similar ways though. I just think it´s the "building" element
that´s important and interesting, not so much the "digital" side. To me
trying to play random data files as audio is not that much different from
hitting random objects hoping for good sounds either.

Just my cents,
Kas.



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