Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
From: Richard Wentk (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 14:52:18 EDT
At 13:55 05/08/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>So, what you're saying is that you can hear a piece of music, and not be
>able to tell if it's computer music if you don't know the extent of the
>composers programming chops? That seems a bit dubious a dividing line
Up to a point. Sometimes it is about the medium. And if the medium is the
algorithm used, that can be at least as important as the sound it makes.
That's not really any different to more or less algorithmic composition
techniques like serialism. A real master would fluent in both the
code/techniques and the musical shapes it makes, but just doing something
interestingly unique and experimental with the code is a valid goal.
It may or may not work, and it may or may not sound good. But that's the
point of experimentation.
> > A digital
> > algorithm burned into a PROM is no longer the responsibility of the
> > musician.
>Absolutely it is. It's the responsibility of the composer to decide
>whether or not to use the algorithm, which is the most fundamental
>responsibility there is.
Not at this level.
For better or worse, music has never been just about sound. Being inventive
about how it's made can be a good thing too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:03 EST