Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> 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?
Right!
> > 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.
>
You'll note that I did include a violin as an example of technology
("old tech") in my last note. Ditto for the pianoforte . . .
(Of course a concert quality violin is BIG BIG Bucks . . . can't imagine
most of us WANTING to spend $100,00 plus for a looper . . . . so there's
one trade-off.)
As far as I'm concerned, my "primary" instrument, the electric bass, is
totally in it's infancy-both from the tech and understanding/expectation
sides of things.
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...)
>
Again, I've had about 15 DDLs in my life and still have three.
Not hung up on pre-CBS Strats or Jazz Basses either.
NOT AN EMOTIONAL DIATRIBE AGAINST THE DEVICES! JUST USAGE THEREOF.
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.
>
Right (on both counts), but I don't expect the tech to "really" come of
age in my lifetime . . . DAMN. Will still use the stuff.
(When will they scrap/modify MIDI? It only has 128 variables on volume
from ppp to fff, as far as I can tell, that's LAUGHABLE to a
violinist/flautist, etc.)
Not bent, just an OBSERVATION about the "NOW."
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?
>
NOT A GUITAR SYNTH (do you dislike these?). A person playing a "regular
instrument" through a bunch of processing.
Not totally based on one experience, just an example.
Agreed: "forced these instruments into an inappropriate context."
MY POINT EXACTLY-or perhaps, not ADAPTING their approach to the context
(back to Musical Decisions/Flexibilty).
I still don't think that electronics are as fully "evolved" (from both a
tech and performance practice perspective). But try to get a violin to
loop by itself . . .
Also, the first time that I brought this up was in a discussion that was
precipitated vis a vis AMBIENT MUSIC and the pros and cons.
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.
>
Right . . . I have plenty of synths too . . . try to invite a Syphony
Orchestra into your home to have a rehearsal, for FREE.
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?
>
Same could be said for perspectives on AMBIENT music. Some is gonna be
crap and some good . . .
My main question is this: What's the focal point? Music or tech?
Just dealing with/communicating MY pet peeve . . .
steuart
> kim
> ________________________________________________________
> Kim Flint 408-752-9284
> Mpact System Engineering kflint@chromatic.com
> Chromatic Research http://www.chromatic.com
>
>