[microsound] tools vs. aesthetics?

[andrew benson <cloudmachine99@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.  The fact
that this puts added responsibility on the composer
only forces the composer to refine and perfect the
whole system.  This has been the case in the visual
arts for centuries.  As a painter, I never really
understood pigment until I started mixing my own
paints with raw materials.  Many ceramicists mine
their own clay and build their own kilns.  The laptop
has allowed musicians and composers to have a more
holistic approach to sound and composition.  
   
IMHO, electronic music tends to lack an awareness of
the tools that goes beyond self-reflexive digital
discourse.  Programs like Pd, Max, SC, etc. allow for
a greater awareness of the molecular aspects of sound.
   It seems Live is a very popular tool because it
fits with many people's aesthetics, or is just the
most convenient answer.  

Andrew Benson
www.cloud-machine.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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