quoted 1 line ajwells@ix.netcom.com wrote this on 3/8/00 1:32 PM>ajwells@ix.netcom.com wrote this on 3/8/00 1:32 PMquoted 11 lines I think the dream setup for me>> >I think the dream setup for me
>> >would be entirely software based with nothing but knobs, faders and midi
>> >instruments atached to the computer. Currently I'm programing some stuff
>> >in Csound (I'd upgrade to jMax but my machine is too slow). With a little
>> >knoweldge in Csound and the possibility of jMax, I wonder why anyone buys
>> >retail outboard gear at all.
>
>Well there are plenty of electronic artists who either hate the matrix
>that working in a computer environment throws you into or dont use them
>much because they play live and understand the problems that one can get
>into with excessive reliance on computers...
But the matrix was just a movie. I can understand the madness of numbers
but hell, we _are_ talking about electronic music (analog or digital),
which is based on numbers, circuits and logic. With a stable opperating
system and well tested computer environment, I don't see how there could
be problems for live digital performance.
quoted 8 lines I know that some people work with computers and love them... and buy>I know that some people work with computers and love them... and buy
>into the myth that you can do "anything" with computers... but one of
>the reasons for all of the sameness in electronic music at the moment is
>because working in a computer sequencing environment does not present
>the opportunity for things to fuck up in an interesting way and it also
>removes the artist from the reality that sound emanates from THINGS
>vibrating, not numbers approximating waves... that physical quality of
>sound is often lost or changed in a computer environment...
I don't understand. I mean, speaking of electronic music, there is
nothing that vibrates, or even moves inside analog _or_ digital
equipment. The only thing that moves the air to produce sound is the
loudspeaker. If you break down synthesis into electronic waveforms, a
program like Csound or jMax is not using sampled anything. It is
generating the same waveforms that an old analogue synthesizer would be
generating. It really is the same thing. I understand the necessity of
physical vibrations with non-electronic music (being a classical pianist
myself), I still haven't found a sampled piano that sounds anything like
the Steinway Grand in the hall I practice in.
As far as using anomaly and unintended design advantages to produce new
sounds, people _are_ doing this with digital equipment. Tetsu Inoue makes
great music using 'glitched' digital shit. My ears are quickly becoming
acustomed to the CD skipping sound and I have heard that effect used on
some recordings and in live situations, all to great results. Digital
equipment does fuck up and makes really interesting sounds when it does.
My old computer can't handle more than three notes at once when I am
using a soft synth. It starts to produce defects when i do this. These
defects are quite facinating and go far beyong the silly digital 'clicks'
which characterize many older programs. A friend of mine pushed Rebirth
to some very strange limits as well. Try cranking up the BPM meter as
high as it will go and moving in and out of patterns.
quoted 6 lines Of course computer audio environments do make it possible for a large>Of course computer audio environments do make it possible for a large
>segment of the listening public to create as opposed to consuming, but
>when you see the glut of "electronica" currently polluting the stores,
>you have to wonder whether that is a good thing... there has always been
>a finite amount of true substance in any artistic field, and that
>percentage doesnt change with advances in technology...
I don't see how that is relivant to exploring newer methods of producing
sound.
quoted 8 lines Many artists at the forefront of modern music are rejecting the>Many artists at the forefront of modern music are rejecting the
>sequencing environment for more of a hands on approach because they feel
>constricted by the "limitless possibilities" of the computer... in art,
>unlike most other areas of life, more choices does not equal a better
>situation... art usually thrives on limitation, and I think we are going
>to see more and more artists moving beyond the computer in the next few
>years... the more you TOUCH a piece of art the more you empart yourself
>onto it... and you cant touch anything inside your Logic environment
Touching devices is the most important part of playing music. That's why
many people are making physical interfaces for software environments.
This is the digital ideal I'm looking forward to and exploring myself.
MIDI still has limitless applications. With physical interfaces I _can_
touch my logic environment.
quoted 5 lines I mean just look at the continued and even increased popularity of>I mean just look at the continued and even increased popularity of
>analog equipment and hardware sequencers... an Expander or an MPC3000
>hasnt lost any value despite all of the computer emulations... there
>will always be something about the "thingness" of musical instruments
>that computers cannot touch...
An MPC is a digital device. It has a computer and an opperating system.
An expander is a signal processing device that is the opposite of a
compressor. You can't make any music with an expander, you can only
affect it. It dosen't vibrate either.
regards,
Lee Azzarello
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org