dobri, thats going to be long. sorry, i will keep a maximum of 20 lines
next time.. just my kind of rap... ;) and i had some neuronal activity I
couldn´t stop. don´t take it wrong I am not trying to fuck up what you
said. I understand your point of view too. if you are bored (or anyone
else is) just tell me.
dobri wrote:
quoted 3 lines i'm talking about the technicalities of writing and reading about
> i'm talking about the technicalities of writing and reading about
> NON-EXISTENT (so far) worlds and creating sounds which didn't exist
> before the speaker played them.
you mean like an acoustic guitar on the first day of its invention?
what you say makes totally sense but its not happening anymore. most
sounds ppl do have been done before. non-exsiting worlds. yes, give it
to me! :) its mostly a problem of technology that is already quite
explored. rupert hine once said: "we cannot compose new melodies
anymore, each thinkable melody has been done already. its about
rearranging and twisting the game a little now... we can only variate.".
i am afraid that is the case most of the time.
but i know what you mean. actually we can do "acoustical sci-fi" with
any given instrument or voice or whatever. its the attitude to actually
really do something that wasn´t heared before. actually science fiction
AND IDM both trigger the sense for exploration of uncharted territory.
quoted 5 lines i'm not concerned at all with how realistic a sci-fi, cyberpunk,
> i'm not concerned at all with how realistic a sci-fi, cyberpunk,
> space-opera, lsd-novel, etc is. in the same way, sounds coming from a
> synthesizer are artificially-produced but are not less real than those
> coming from a piano. you should not confuse "real", "realistic",
> "artificial", and "synthetic".
:) sorry, i just don´t have your perception and concept of synthetic and
artificial. a piano is a highly technical and therefore "artificial"
thing for me. pure technology anyway. it does not grow on trees. it
makes an extremely complex amplified sound that cannot be imitated by
human voice, thatz why we feel so "small" and touched when a piano is
playing. it is mighty and it is a technically amplified sound. look at
it phenomenologically. the synthesizer does allow all kind of natural
feedbacks too. i can touch it, play it, smell it, throw it out of the
window. analog synths are highly sensitive to temperature. the
amplification is not relevant to me. an electric guitar is as direct and
natural as an acoustic guitar. the problem with the synthesizer is only
that the speaker-system is not build in. we could do that.
then it´ll be more natural in your sense?
I vaguely remember this song from wevie stonder: "from the brain to the
mouth, from the mouth to the mic, from the mic to the amp, from the amp
to the speakers, from the speakers to your ears, from your ears to your
brain. from the brain to my mouth.." or somthing alike.. each step of
transportation / amplification is natural and equal in my understanding
of "natural". i really dug that
quoted 5 lines see, when you play the guitar, the vibration is part of the qualities
>
> see, when you play the guitar, the vibration is part of the qualities
> of the strings and the wooden-box. you can actually hear the strings
> vibrating, and the wooden box reinforcing the sound-wave. it's part of
> nature that you're listening to.
or not listening to. in psycho-acoustics we have the "masking effect"
which says that in case that a low sound that was perceived by our
neuronal system (brain) is followed by a loud sound its information will
be substracted from the perceptive system. a loud sound coming in
several milliseconds AFTER an already perceived low sound will be
recognised consciously and prefered, while the low sound is deleted
before it is pushed to consciousness (olthough it was in a buffered
neuronal storage system before). this is possible cause there is a
latency between hearing and storing the sound as an information and
finally bringing it into the focus of the person. this is a mathematical
process of addition / subtraction on a very high and precise level.
what I want to say is: if my brain works sometimes like a signal
processor, then how natural is a computer?
worth to think about it and these kind of thoughts are exactly the ones
that come to me since I read scifi :) ... i cannot think of a more
life-focussed, nature-based concept and way to read ( a little bit of
irony here ) ;)
you have to be really carefully with the concept of "natural". it´s so
overdone... i don´t think anyone on the planet can precisely say if the
technological evolution (synthesizers, atomboms, mobile phones, food
design) we are going through is natural or not. its just a human
definition. I personally think IT IS natural. even I believe since we
started polluting our bodies with radio-activity, quicksilver abuse,
decreasing food-quality and electro-magnetic field-force overdoses and
so on we really fucked it up ("we have come a long way baby"). BUT I am
afraid that it is all part of nature´s concept. the planet doesn´t mind.
the development of intelligent strategies and consciousness lead to
technology and "civilisation". I can only think of "nature" as being the
sum of all relevant dynamic forces of the universe in themselves
(energy, entropy, gravity, electro-magnetism and so on). so nature is
simply anything that is happening (in my opinion).
and I am not so alone with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature#The_natural_and_the_artificial
quoted 3 lines in contrast, the synthesizer doesn't possess any good accoustic
> in contrast, the synthesizer doesn't possess any good accoustic
> characteristics. it, however, can create certain electromagnetic
> fields which provoke a speaker membrane to vibrate.
pure nature. I can make my guitar sound like a synthesizer if I want it.
I just need acoustical tools.. no electricity or chips. the physical
rules of sound-engineering say that you can produce mostle ANY acoustic
manipulation with mechanical amplification and without electricity.
filters are easy, you have to damp certain frequencies and if you move
the sound-source while filtering you can achieve modulated filtering.
exactly like a synthesizer (just waaay more fumbling). don´t try this at
home, kids.
a good example is the bass-filtering in acoustical subwoofers by simply
damping the sound with material. (the ones without electrical
LowPass-Filters) or human beatboxing
quoted 2 lines the worlds of william gibson don't exist in reality, do they?
>
> the worlds of william gibson don't exist in reality, do they?
yes and no. literally: no. we don´t have the chess-board-style matrix
surfing lifestyle. but on the other hand we have all kind of viruses,
trojans, bots and so on and we do use computers in a similar way. they
are exactly the same in the networks then in gibsons vision. the
difference is the dramatic effect. the computer-stuff in gibsan´s books
are magnified, distorted.
and then: just wait 2-3 years until SONY or another company starts
selling some 180° panoramic TFT glasses that keep a hole generation of
kids from making any homework ever again and will cause dramatical
addictive problems on computer- and gamefreaks. design a 180° compatible
webbrowser and you are half the way towards neuromancer (without the
implants).
but i guess gibson is not toffler..
quoted 4 lines he didn't go out, saw a guy with chips in his head and steel bones and
> he didn't go out, saw a guy with chips in his head and steel bones and
> said, "dude, let's write a novel about that guy over there!" or maybe
> you can make the argument that certain people can see directly in the
> future as it is going to be? i doubt it.
u shouldn´t. some people do and that IS sometimes the essence of the
fantastic novels by these authors. see the future? william toffler did
(read "future shock" and compare) and my mother did when she predicted a
letter from the postman one day. I remember it very clearly: she got up
in a terrible mood and told me that she felt really bad and anxious, she
didn´t know why, was totally disbalanced and she had a weird dream of my
grandfather telling her that everything´s fine. after she opened her
letters we knew it. my grandfather had died 3 months ago and that was a
delayed note of this incident. so she predicted the bad news, the
arrival of the letter (not his death). i call this looking into the
future, yes. you don´t need to believe what I tell you, but I think
prediciton exists (evokes) in certain situations.
we do it by interpolation/extrapolation of subliminal information. you
can do it best the nearer you are to the moment that you want to
predict. there is a lot of hidden information that we can use to predict
situations to come. (meta-communication) nothing magical in the process,
one day it will be explored. I don´t believe in supernatural effects btw.
quoted 2 lines anyway. maybe you should just fuck this topic, it became too theoretical.
>
> anyway. maybe you should just fuck this topic, it became too theoretical.
its only words.. ;)
robert
quoted 111 lines dobri
>
> dobri
>
>
> Robert Feuchtl wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> in the same way, science-fiction reality happens in our minds for
>>> the first time when we read it. this reality is not one that the
>>> writers saw in the real world. it is a complitely synthetically
>>> fabricated world which the writers weave according to their own
>>> imagination and then record into paper and harddisks in order our
>>> brains to give life to it later.
>>>
>>> that's how electronic music and science-fiction are similar in
>>> "artificiality" and that's probably one of the reasons why so many
>>> people enjoy these genres.
>>
>>
>>
>> iґm sorry friend. canґt agree with that. the scifi I mostly always
>> admired is sometimes a predicted future, yes but not necessarily
>> artifial nature (jack vance is quite hippie / fantasy stuff in a
>> sophisticated scientific way)... I am simply fascinated by the
>> possibilties of the future (frank herbert, p.k. dick). they feedback
>> backwards towards our life. sci fi was an hatred genre because ppl
>> thought it has nothing to do with their lifes.. this made the authors
>> of these times even more mad about writing real shit.. that, and the
>> (re)discovery of drugs and psychology, zen-philosophy etc. in the
>> early 60ies towards the late 60ies layed the ground for the golden
>> age of scifi which definetly was in that era. and john brunner is a
>> fucking genious of giving real life stories a dark and thrilling
>> psychologic twist.. i donґt understand why nobody ever plundered his
>> books for film. aynways, thats also scifi and absolutely not
>> artificial...
>>
>> i think its just the slick black / silver polished spaceships and an
>> affection for high-tec we have since getting paralyzed by THX1138,
>> blade runner and alien ... :)
>>
>> is "stalker" scifi? is it artificial? :)
>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> well, that's for now,
>>> dobri
>>>
>>>
>>> "The best way to predict the future is to go (mentally) in the
>>> direction in which our fears grow."
>>
>>
>>
>> yeah. but I totally agree with that... :)
>>
>>> "What some people perceive as the End of the World, for History is
>>> just the sign that Future is coming."
>>
>>
>>
>> u should have told that to the dinosaurs ;)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> seek wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Enquiries"
>>>>
>>>>> My own recommendations:
>>>>> Jorge Luis Borges - anything, but particularly the collection called
>>>>> Labyrinths, not sci-fi, but what the heck, deals with the infinite
>>>>> Thomas Pynchon - has to be Gravity's Rainbow really.
>>>>> Samuel R. Delaney - dhalgren, don't know where to start, just read
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Jeff Noon - the earlier ones, particularly Vurt and Pollen.
>>>>> Donald Barthelme - again not really sci-fi, but freaky enough to
>>>>> include.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now ~that~ is a worthwhile reading list.
>>>>
>>>> seek
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
>
--
B O B H U M I D @ G R O O V E M A G A Z I N E
( t e c h n o l o g i c a l _ e d i t o r )
servicelinks:
http://www.groove.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org