Re: observances


Subject: Re: observances
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz (bathory@maltedmedia.com)
Date: Fri Jul 23 1999 - 21:20:36 EDT


At 01:15 AM 7/23/99 -0700, Eric Lanzillotta wrote:
>At 10:51 AM -0400 7/17/99, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>>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 u
>
>I think the point, which I believe is relevant, is that most of these
>pieces basically end up sounding like demos for the software and have no
>really input. Basically you are hearing the same techniques used over and
>over and over and not seeing anyone really actually do anything, just
>process their sounds and churn out another piece like everyone else's.

If that was the point, which I'm not sure about. So everything is more or
less the same as everyone else's, the occasional visionary excepted, who
still draws on experience. It's hardly different than Zappa's complaint
about boom-bap, boom-boom-bap. But to transmute that normal situation
(i.e., most stuff is crap) into believing that the composer is somehow
trembling at the mercy of the software is just silly. The quote was, "When
programmes become immediately recognisable, it's easy to hear how the
software is manipulating its user." Sameness or lack of imagination is not
the same as demonic digits manipulating the composer-zombie.

Dennis
http://maltedmedia.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:03 EDT