One comment^H^H^H^H^H^H^H rant inline:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rreprobate [mailto:lord@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:58 AM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [motm] Re: what do we do our computers??
>
>
>
> I think it's a mistake to prematurely underestimate the new
> territory being discovered as a result of making
> traditionally "academic" computer music tools ∗realtime∗ and
> ∗affordable∗ .
>
> Cheap amplification allowed three guys with guitars to make
> more noise than an orchestra, and that changed everything.
>
> Sad to say, the results of non-realtime computer music have
> not historically been of much interest to most humans. Making
> these instruments affordable and real-time means that people
> are PERFORMING MUSIC with them -- which is the sure path to relevancy.
>
> I understand your dismay at the state of "basic research" in
> academia right now. But I think that neither the lack of
> research, nor the cheap availability of music tools are
> responsible for "bad music." I would look to the more
> pedestrian forces of human sloth and your own personal grumpiness.
>
There is a severe and profound disconnect between academia and the "real
world". Not to denigrate one or the other but the academic world has
little seeming awareness of what is happening and little interest in
learning. They are "stuck" in their own world and have evolved into a
very specialized cadre only interested in self replication. Darwin's
Finches come immediately to mind.
I was with joy when I first ran into the Computer Music Journal in 1976.
I got every copy and devoured it. This was when Bernie was publishing
Electronotes and I thought that CMJ would offer a sort of large and
future view where Bernie was offering a circuit design newsletter.
I got way more from Electronotes and the mainstream popular media (
Keyboard, Mix, etc. ) than I ever got from CMJ. I am holding in my hand
the 20th annual issue: Vol20 #1, ISSN 0148-9267 Spring 1996. The theme
for the issue is The State of the Art.
In it, I run into an article from the head honcho and another person at
CCRMA ( J-C Risset and S. VanDuyne ) describing: Real-Time Performance
Interaction with a Computer-Controlled Acoustic Piano. Fourteen pages
including bibliography to say that they are using a MAC running MAX to
control a Yamaha Disklavier with MIDI. A quick Google shows that the
Disklavier was introduced nine years prior to the publication date of
the article. State of the Art indeed...
Equipment reviews in the back of the journal are also wonderful.
They tout the Yamaha VL7 mono synth as new but Yamaha says it was
released in 1994 - two years prior to the publication date.
They announce the Korg OASYS but we are looking at 1993 for its release.
Three years. State of the Art again...
I am not trying to deny these people their fun but when they set
themselves up to be progenitors of today's music tools, I have to say
"nuts to you sir - you are wrong!"
John Chowning's FM work (a derivation of Fourier's) was instrumental in
a lot of the initial synthesizers but it was Yamaha offering Stanford U.
a mega-royalty check that shook that development out and brought it into
the real world where it flourished. They made it real-time whereas all
the University Music Labs had it as batch jobs: Submit a card deck and
come back tomorrow to pick up your tape... If you are lucky... If all
your cards were correctly punched... If the operator didn't drop the
deck...
Also, this is not sour grapes or ignorance on my part - I grew up in an
academic family, I took academic music courses (organ at U. Pitt.) and
spent a lot of time in college (primary work was biology at Boston U.).
I made the decision to leave the academic world when I got frustrated by
not being able to do "real work" and also by my own limitation of not
being willing to participate in the communal circle-jerk that passes for
academic scholarship, hiring and tenure.
I will close with two-point-one observations:
#1) - None of the people that I read in the table of contents of CMJ are
names that I hear about in music today.
I am still interested in experimental music (own an MOTM after all...),
go to interesting shows at U.Washington, etc...
#2.0) - There was another "Journal" (and I mean this in the most
honorable of terms) - this is the Experimental Musical Instruments
Journal published by Bart Hopkin. This puppy started publication in
1985 and I am proud to have an almost complete set of it. These are
people who made music for the fun of it, who innovated with whatever
they had at hand, who were the real driving forces behind what is
experimental music today.
#2.1 - scanning quickly through a couple issues of it, I recognize lots
of names who are still involved in music. In the last five years, I
have seen or heard about performances of people who I was first made
aware of through this Journal.
http://www.windworld.com/emi/ > Cheers,
>
> Max Lord
>
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:
> > You are still talking about technologies that were available almost
> > fifteen years ago. Perhaps not on your lap top, but these
> products are
> > simply commercialized versions of early discoveries. The buffer of
> > "innovations to come" and current software is pretty much
> on the same
> > page these days. There are no more "natural" resources to
> tap in terms
> > of innovations that couldn't be done because of slow
> computers. This
> > leads to a stagnation in peoples interest to explore. Like you say,
> > everything is available and it would take a lifetime to explore.....
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's
> Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/VpLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>