The computer as instrument, was Re: [linux-audio-user] Bainstorming! Drawing in non-musician developers

[Dave Phillips]

Frank Barknecht wrote:

>>... I hope someday people will
>>be playing computers like people play guitars today. It's a lot of fun
>>to code, but it would be even more fun if it wouldn't eat into the time
>>I have available for producing music so much.
>>    
>>
>
>But coding *is* playing the computer like people play the guitar!
>
Careful, Frank, there are a few of us here who do both. :)  I 
respectfully disagree with your statement, though I agree with its intent.

Playing any instrument requires years of physical engagement to form a 
playing technique. I'll certainly agree that using a computer also 
requires years of effort to master, but that mastery is not based on an 
analogous "playing technique".

One of my favorite musicians (Paul Lansky) referred to the computer as 
"the first instrument of the mind", and he felt strongly that its 
pedagogy shouldn't be limited by previous models of instrumental skill 
and proficiency. The computer gives so-called non-musicians a real 
chance to work with music, but only the same kind of dedication to 
mastery of the medium will yield a skill commensurate with that of an 
instrumentalist. For some, that means learning more about music so they 
can be more expressive, for others the same end will be achieved by 
learning more about the computer (i.e. instrument).

Btw, Dr Lansky also had things to say about using the received knowledge 
base from electronic and tape studios as a basis for a computer music 
pedagogy, again pointing out that those skill sets, though admirable and 
useful, were themselves unnecessarily limiting in their approach using 
the computer for composing music.

Many people believe that the computer will confer "skillful results" in 
spite of the user's lack of any background in the techniques of music. 
In point of fact, some people do get such results, but they are often 
very focused people who have a good sense of what it is they wish to 
accomplish. Very little of any lasting value is produced by merely 
random means or automata.

Aside: I love the story that Boulez "touched up" some of his total 
serialist pieces to make them sound better.

It occurs to me that the computer isn't really the instrument, the 
software is. In other words, Frank plays Pd, not the computer. The 
program shapes the computer into an audio device, but it's Pd that does 
the processing/playing. The computer merely crunches the data for the 
program, i.e., it is not involved or engaged with it otherwise.

Well, I'm rambling this morning. To finish: I really don't care how the 
music gets made, that's of no interest to me (unless I want to know more 
about the "how" of something like a mic placement or other recording 
technique). I just want to hear more music from people using Linux to 
make it. And no, the Linux part isn't important qua music, but it 
indicates to me personally that the Linux audio users community is 
musically healthy and productive. That is after all what so many (like 
Frank B) have dedicated ourselves to accomplishing.

Best,

dp