this is kind of a sticky argument ..
i definitely agree that if a programmer/artist creates a max patch that
algorithmically creates a musical composition, then it should be
considered in much the same manner as a musical score; the artist
deserves credit, because the patch is serving as a proxy for the composer
by carrying their concepts to fruition.
but i have trouble transferring that same relationship to a piece of
software like cubase or rebirth, because they are tools used to create
music, not musical pieces in their own right. you can definitely hear the
distinctive sounds made by rebirth or cubase, but you can also hear the
distinctive sounds made by a bosendorfer piano or stradivarius violin.
the difference between an art and a craft is a very fuzzy one ... you
surely cannot draw a line and say "okay this is a work of art, but this is
just a tool" ... sometimes a tool can be crafted so well that it becomes
more than it was ever intended to be ...
--
String Theory : Digital Music for Humans
http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 alex@state51.co.uk wrote:
quoted 60 lines On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, christian adam hresko wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, christian adam hresko wrote:
>
> Very interesting message...
>
> > and maybe this is why IDM is quite emotionless. (at least i think it
> > is. and that's actually one of the reasons i enjoy it...) you're
> > listening to a concept. a process. a method.
>
> This is the case with all music IMHO. It's just that some processes are
> more ingrained in popular technique than others. There's nothing more
> processed based than your average pop song... They're just all using the
> same process.
>
> I think the problem with process based computer music, is where musicians
> use other people's process and take credit.
>
> The idea that you can use Autechre's patch and then create fantastic music
> is false. Software that creates music is not a tool, it's a music score!
> So all you're doing is playing Autechre's music, or performing Autechre's
> music, or remixing Autechre's music. But you're starting with a score,
> not merely a tool.
>
> This comes down to one problem: people have trouble seeing programming
> computers as a creative, expressive act. A computer can do nothing
> without humans, and writing code is an act of human expression. And so if
> you're using software written by someone else, and that software is having
> an influence over how you are creating, then you are in grave danger of
> creating derivative works.
>
> Unless you use your imagination, and use the software in ways in which the
> original programmer didn't predict, then you are not being creative, in my
> opinion. Of course, this leaves a great deal of scope for creativity with
> good software.
>
> But too often you can hear the cubase, or the rebirth in a piece of music.
> I don't have any particular problem with this until I think about how
> little credit the original programmers are getting. But perhaps this is
> an opinion borne out of my heavy use of free sofwtware.
>
> When I'm writing electronic music I am very conscious about how the
> software is defining my creative 'search space', and highly respectful of
> the people who contribute towards making my individual expression
> possible. This includes the operating system, microcode, device driver
> hackers, because all these things are essential to me and are important
> creative acts in themselves.
>
> I feel that only programmers can create truly original pieces of
> electronic music. MAX is a visual programming language, but if you use it
> by piecing together other people's patches, then you should give those
> people credit.
>
>
> Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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