12 Feb
2010
12 Feb
'10
8:48 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
He's wrong if you take 'they' as meaning
'all of them',
but that was not what he intended to say. Some people
are working on this, and ISTR that you posted another
very interisting link about this some months ago.
almost certainly the same one i just posted :)
He's right is in the sense that in many cases a
random
result is accepted as satisfactory - which it can be of
course.
its not just that randomness is OK. its that (a) a highly quantized
(b) low parameter experience is OK.
i can't remember who said this, it may have been hans tutschku (who
was at the TU Berlin a couple of years before me): the mouthpiece of a
trumpet or trombone has more inherent "playability" than almost any
electronic interface so far invented.
Another aspect is that even without fancy human
interface
hardware, even driving a mouse or just typing commands in
a terminal can become something very 'physical' in the Eno
sense if you take if far enough - yet many users don't take
themselves that far. It requires *not* accepting a random
result to get there, no matter what the interface is, a
combination of mind and body.
the problem with eno's quote is that he also noted that contemporary
music technology "raises the question of defining the artist as
someone who exercises judgement rather than skill". i think that it
was very refreshing 50-30 years to have the process of musical
creation transformed into an editing process (in the most general
sense) rather than a matter of virtuosic performance. but these days,
the notion of an endless stream of 16-30 somethings picking presets
plus FX settings from one of a huge array of sound generators has
become rather tiresome.
DubFX does seem awfully good though, and he's not a bad singer either :)
--p
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !