Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag


Subject: Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag
From: James Phelps (jimphelps_niucms@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 13:11:24 EDT


Personally, I've never been very interested in the
nomenclature. Oh how I remember not so long ago when
various souls championed, evangelically(!) the cause
of installing, even enforcing, the use of the term
"electroacoustic."

Yawn .....

-Jim Phelps

--- lawrence casserley <leo@chiltern.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> On 4 Oct, 2005, at 14:51, Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>
> > Popular music is not computer music? What
> constitutes computer music?
> > All digital? No recording?
> >
> There isn't really any such thing - or, to be more
> precise, the term
> means a lot of different things to a lot of
> different people, so it is
> almost impossible to agree on a definition.
>
> 1) We can argue that this is a term equivalent to
> "Piano Music" - it
> tells you practically nothing about the music - only
> the instrument it
> was played on - it includes a Chopin etude, a Boulez
> Sonata, a solo by
> Veryan Weston, etc.
>
> 2) A further take on this approach is that it is not
> the computer that
> is the instrument, merely the platform on which the
> instrument (the
> software) can be made - so this is CSound music,
> Max/msp music, Ableton
> Live music, etc. In my case there is another layer
>
> 3) Yet another approach is to say that computer
> music means things that
> can _only_ be made on a computer (Ikue Mori?), which
> is a tempting
> definition, but one that is tricky to prove in many
> cases. Sure, new
> ways of creating sounds (FM, Acoustic Modelling,
> etc) have been made
> possible by computers, but many of these have been
> incorporated into
> commercial products in one way or another -
> sampling, of course, is
> another.
>
> 4) Some people think of computer music only as music
> where the computer
> is not only realising the sounds, but playing a role
> in choosing which
> sounds to realise - as in algorithmic music.
>
> There are other possible definitions too.....
>
> I have designed a computer instrument for my live,
> improvised music -
> does that make it computer music? I don't know (and
> I'm not sure I
> care), but while it would at least theoretically be
> possible, I
> suppose, to create an analogue equivalent - it
> would be incredibly
> complex, and probably crazily expensive (and
> transporting it to a
> gig.....yikes!!!). Eg, a three minute delay line
> with 37 taps that can
> be moved around the temporal space under the control
> of a two
> dimensional gesture device (graphics tablet). More
> importantly, the
> ability to develop it gradually while in use to fit
> my needs better, or
> to follow them as they change, even to invent
> completely new versions -
> that is what the computer has given me - the ability
> to adapt the
> instrument precisely to my needs, as well as to
> explore new
> possibilities without major additional outlay. Is
> that computer music?
>
> In the early days the ability to do this at all was
> confined to very
> large institutions with lots of resources - in my
> case I could only do
> the best I could with the available resources,
> bumping my head against
> the ceiling all the way (sometimes the limitations
> produced good
> results, often not!). All the time I was
> anticipating the possibility
> of the real-time dsp machine - until it became a
> reality. IMV, that's
> when my music really began to take off. So yes, I
> guess I probably am
> doing things that can only really be done with
> computers. Does it
> matter?
>
> Best
>
> L
>
> Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
> Lawrence Electronic Operations -
> www.lcasserley.co.uk
> Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
>
>

                
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST