Re: (More) Hot sounds from Inner space!

Subject: Re: (More) Hot sounds from Inner space!
From: sylvi macCormac (
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 05:47:46 EDT

hey Matt / Dr Mutt

Beware Dis Cussions of DNA of SOUND ... perhaps it is computer generated
and as Kevin has shown us his it appears to have somthing akin to ships
wheels as multi-directional

i 'sense' in your 'Aura' a fluff war involving th synaesthetic amongst us.
o and your DNA is showing ;-) tho you 'seem' to be having trouble 'hearing'
it .. what was that aboot dissing your pointalism entirely ?

btw, ain't it th scientists among us who 'invented' FM Synthesis and
Granular Synthesis ? and th computer aka knobs that you are composing with
... aka PODX and it's children th iPODs ... or 8 tracks .. or MP3 surround
sound ... what ever happened to MP1 or MP2 ? ;-) .. went th way of cassette
decks ? wh8ich i hear are coming back in cause they never went out ...

i am glad Matt's email shows th inner DNA of a composers process .... in
surround sound with DNA and a space to dream attached while in Canada ...
:-) ..

this dis cussion is cool & beautiful (in earth terms) and is out with birds
... or it is that in with th EA birds ... ;-) .. if only Hugh LeCaine were
hear to compose with water drops ... and call it 'Dripsody' ... only in
Canada you say ? would any one like biscuits with their tea ? .. and i
hear Hugh LeCaine and his decendents / ancestors are listening ... :-) ...

best regards, sylvi macCormac
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / na / da / bc
siwash rock & soundscape composition

YO! Able Dis! on line at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar -

ASCAP Deems Taylor Award-winning show featuring Music
and Interviews with Non-Pop Composers from around the world
including Laurie Anderson, Jean Piché, Pamela Z, John Oswald

DIS Cussions of DNA attached .... ;-) ...


John Nowak wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2005, at 2:11 AM, Richard Wentk wrote:
> There were no turf war aspects in my email. You're making false
> assumptions.
> > - 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
> > noodlings?
> While I agree with you, you're missing my point entirely.
> - John

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:09 EST