Subject: Re: observances
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jul 17 1999 - 10:51:35 EDT
At 10:14 AM 7/17/99 -0400, Kevin Austin wrote:
>Is part of this issue a question of access to resources as well?
I've always thought so. Resources in academia include not only computer
equipment and software, but recording tools, department budgets, student
assistants, infrastructure, technical support, on-site information
exchange, studio and performance environments, sabbaticals, academic
travel, even having a closet full of cables -- and the fact that the
resources are part of the 'day job' itself. As an independent, I've often
been told, "why don't you just..." (get this, use that, go there) --
choices that are assumed in an academic environment, but available to the
independent only after the bills are paid. After waiting two years, I'm
happy just to have installed a new motherboard and processor this week.
Yes, resources have always played a key role in defining the 'academic'
composer -- the point of 'cultural irrelevance' is well taken.
Most of the jury statement, however, is nonsense. Gee, I can identify the
software used to produce that; might as well say I know a clarinet is
playing that tune. Saying the software is manipulating the user is akin to
believing the limits of a clarinet manipulate the composer? Cultural
irrelevance, maybe, but the rest is invented vocabulary and nonsense
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:02 EDT