Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Kim's response to this is excellent! Here Here! Some other thoughts: >>my question is this: What is more >>capable of nuanced performance people or machines? >>I don't expect machines to >>perform as well as people, Machines are still pretty much doing what we tell them (when they work). GIGO. The user also has to be sensible as to what context they bring technology into. E.G., I like to develop loops synced w/ MIDI drum & bass tracks, but I might not want to try the same with a live rock band, unless the other musicians specifically wanted to do this, it would take their cooperation & patience. A performer may also make a better choice not to bring a technology into a certain situation, until they've mastered the device(s) well enough to work within the context. Or the other parties involved may want to expand their expectations. I was in a music class where the ensemble is basically jamming standard jazzbo, and for my solo I would push the guitar p/u's into the speaker and modulate the feedback with my phase shifter while swinging the guitar around. This angered the instructor, and may not have met current expectations, but it was fun to do (but maybe only for me, oh well). Reg At 12:05 AM 2/7/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 02:41 PM 2/6/98 -0600, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote: >> IF someone is noodling with a guitar (or any instrument) without >>processing, it can be just as annoying (or more so) than any IC chip. >>But I have to go back to situations that I've been in where people were >>so hung up on their processors that they couldn't react to a group >>improv situation. As far as my experience goes, the micro-processors in >>these machines can't react as quickly as I can to someone else's >>playing, particulary where change of tonality is concerned. I guess I'm >>bugged when I feel that people are abdicating their musical flexibilty >>or decision-making to whatever tool it is that they use. > >So it seems you are bothered by the people and not so much the tools they >use? > > > >> Lastly, with all this talk of the human/instrument interface >>also being a "limitation" . . . my question is this: What is more >>capable of nuanced performance people or machines? For example, the old >>tech of Violins, etc. has been developed for many thousands of years, >>try to get a MIDI instrument to be as nuanced both from the hardware >>side and the performance practice side. I don't expect machines to >>perform as well as people, I use 'em and think that they're great tools, >>but I understand what I consider to be their limitations and uses. > >I always find it remarkable when people perceive the newer, electronic >devices as "technology" in preference to older things. I think the piano >is >one of the most stunning technological accomplishments humans have ever >made. The amount of knowledge and invention that had to happen before the >modern piano could exist is simply amazing. That to me is one of the >finest >examples of technology I can think of. Just because it's been basically >finished for a hundred years doesn't lessen the technical accomplishment. > >Now, ICs are no slouch in the technology department either, but knowing >what >goes into them, I just don't see it as so amazing. It always strikes me as >odd when people express an emotionally driven bias against the bits of >technology that happened recently, but are accepting of what happened >before >some arbitrary date. It's luddite hypocrisy. (hmm, I should send that to >Ted >Kaczinski...) > >As you noted, some instruments have been in development for hundreds or >even >thousands of years. A LOT of people spent their entire lives on these, >passing it on to generations of developers and inventors who spent their >entire lives. Electronic instruments have a few decades on them, with most >of the work happening in the last two. Maybe the refinements are still >going >on and have a ways to go? Really, I don't see any point in getting bent >about that. It's like hating a four year old for not have the maturity and >wisdom of his grandfather. Give it time, they'll get there. > >and there are certainly a lot of people making expressive, nuanced music >with existing electronic instruments. Perhaps you just forced these >instruments into an inappropriate context, and expected what they weren't >really capable of? It seems like you developed your entire bias from >playing >in a group improv situation with somebody using a midi controller! And let >me guess, was it that least developed of all midi devices, the guitar >synth? >A bit circumstantial, isn't it? > >The people who create remarkable music with electronic instruments use >them >for what the can do, and place that in service of their music. And a lot >of >what electronics can do isn't possible any other way, so for a lot of >people >it opens possiblities they could not have had otherwise. Some of them do >pretty good stuff. > >And some people just play with the knobs and make goofy noises and never >do >anything remarkable other than enjoy themselves. You can't really fault >them >or the electronics for that, can you? > >kim >________________________________________________________ >Kim Flint 408-752-9284 >Mpact System Engineering kflint@chromatic.com >Chromatic Research http://www.chromatic.com > > > >