Subject: Re: (More) Cool sounds from outer space!
From: John Nowak (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 03:23:10 EDT
On Jul 31, 2005, at 2:11 AM, Richard Wentk wrote:
> At 02:46 31/07/2005, you wrote:
>> While I think some relaxing chai may be in order for you, I do in
>> essence agree with your general evaluation. What you're hearing isn't
>> sound produced by some fantastical space body. It is some radiation
>> that has been modified in very drastic ways (relatively speaking) in
>> order to make a "something" audible.
> Aside from the turf war aspects - *we're* composers, *they're*
> scientists, how dare they...
There were no turf war aspects in my email. You're making false
> - I'm not clear at all what the difference is between radiation
> sourced by a planet modified in very drastic ways and EA-type
> acoustic radiation captured or sourced by electronic hardware and
> software and modified in very drastic ways.
There is no real difference. I 100% agree. Both are perfectly valid
ways *to make music*. My only objection is when people talk about
what the aurora or whatever "sounds" like. It doesn't "sound" like
anything. To say that beautiful sounds come from space just isn't
true. Perhaps I'm being a pedant here, but just as DNA doesn't
"sound" like anything, neither does this aurora.
>> Scientists routinely put out such nonsense: "Here is what DNA
>> sounds like! Amazing!" No no no...
>> please stop...
> Why is this any more nonsensical than 4' 33", a piece featuring 12
> radios tuned at random, or fifty years of self-indulgent serialist
While I agree with you, you're missing my point entirely.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:09 EST