Subject: Re: Why Computer Music Sucks
From: Alexandra Hettergott (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 21 1999 - 14:47:34 EDT
Kevin Austin cadenzed (proceeding from Eric L.) :
>>I think he was talking about computer music specifically above.
> [however, I think I got lost of the /he/]
>What does he (or you) mean by 'computer music'? Using a computer in the
>production of a work?
>Do you feel that there a range of 'types' or categories? What are the
>limits to these? [etc.]
Well, for the very incurable cases you could introduce the "mixed sources mixture"
(or mixed mixture, m^2) as a category ...
Yet more seriously, as regards categorization I think in what was follows (here !) in
your thread I miss a little the distinction between the (compositional) "input" (what
implies, too, both the material and the tools) and "output" (both the formal and the
perceptual aspects) lines ...
Given a jury, there are, in fact, a lot of aspects which are /not really/ subject to
their judgement, as, e.g., the concreteness or factoryness of the material used, for
they have to ask about the sonic result, and also non-musical trifles like external
references, actually, are to be of no --or marginal-- interest to them, as well as
the deepness of the composer's having explored his own material in advance ...
Or maybe it is the notion (and the composition) of the jury which needs a
a chef cook, a sales expert, a greek myth scholar, an industrial sound designer,
a musicologist (with more historical orientation, though) ...
Well, to be even more serious I would like to add that, in general, I do appreciate
the recent Naut Humon statement as far as the jury's making an effort is concerned.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:03 EDT