MOTM

--- In motm@y..., "Cap'n F.M. Bleep" <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > > are you talking about techniques of working with what is now 
> > > vintage equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are 
> > > you talking about techniques of electronic design, techniques 
> > > that would have brought us "next generation" vintage equipment? 
> >
> > I just meant composition *independent* of the instruments, 
> > in a way.
> 
> ahhh... but can we do that in electronic music? the "instrument" is 
> right there in the name, the electron... 

But there are many different technologies of electronic music, analog 
subtractive synthesis being but one.  Just as there are many 
technologies of "breath" music (horns, woodwinds, saxophones, 
dijuridoos, etc.) or "string" music (bowed violin family, hammered 
piano family, plucked harpsichord/clavichord family, etc.).

> in your original statement, composition
> and technology seemed tied together... one had advanced but the 
> other had not...

I would consider it more as the dichotomy between "application" 
(rather than compisition, which is but one application) and 
technology - developments in applications necessarily trail the 
developments in technology (and not just music technology - how many 
years were there between the invention of modem/networking technology 
and the explosive commercial success [and now failure?] of the 
Internet).

As an analogy, consider the saxophone.  The instrument was invented 
(that is, the technology came to exist) in the late 1800s (I think? 
early 1900s, maybe?), and the technology has changed little (if at 
all) since.  Yet the great developments in saxophone applications (as 
opposed to technology) came 50-some (Parker) to 70-some (Coltrane) 
years later.  Or the electric guitar - the great advances in 
application (Hendrix etc.) came 15-20 years after the technology (Les 
Paul, Leo Fender) was developed.

> > But I do think that we as electronic musicians have a peculiar 
> > curse in the fact that our instruments change so quickly. 

Yes, if saxophone or electric guitar technologies were "updated" 
and "unupdated" technologies discarded as rapidly as electronic music 
technologies, the world might never have heard a Charlie Parker or 
John Coltrane or Jimi Hendrix, and the applications of those 
instruments would have never reached their full potential.  That, to 
me, would have been a great artistic tragedy.

> > MOTM modules!  But for me, MOTM is buying something new & 
> > improved while still being true to the spirit of sticking with 
> > one instrument and learning it really well. If that makes any 
> > sense. It's like playing a violin and upgrading to a 
> > Stradivarius, not tossing it out the window for something
> > completely different.
> 
> good analogy!

Yes, exactly!  Same technology, more advanced application of the 
technology.  (Or to continue with one of my previous analogies, to 
upgrade one's electric guitar amp from a 50's 15W amp to a late-60's 
Marshall stack - the technology remains the same, but the more-
advanced application of technology allowed for sonic advancements 
that were previously unknown.)

And, of course, there's nothing wrong with combining technologies for 
further innovations in the applications area.  Saxophone and electric 
guitar sound good in a band together.  Voltage-controlled samplers /  
wavetable synths / digital effects are cool!

    -Doug
     ceres@...