> His tech literacy is contagious. And Barcelona is amazing.
Well great, I'm sure I liked Barcelona too when I was there, but I can't help thinking how hard these people find it to make music in general, in the existing sense.
I mean, how hard would the makers of this kind of scientifically interested software experiment find it to phrase their efforts in terms of the type of synthesis used, or the connection with real (physical I mean) instruments, and all kinds of studio processing which turns these instruments, when played well in the right style, into the wonderful experience for people to listen to called music ?
Probably that's the same as asking "sound field" people to define their main scientific foundations when they use a couple of dozen short tube speakers (without tweeters ?) and a dozen (why ?) sub woofers (smaller than what most PA people would consider a decent ordinary woofer, but anyhow), and especially how they create those "wavefields" coming through the few Madi interfaces, in terms of how that compares with the "traditional" good music makers using lets say and advanced Lexicon effect rack. I mean I fancy the idea of creating a wavefield, but after having listened to some of the people involved and the "installation" a few times I still don't know what the real purpose or actual science is that is promoted, even though a nice "flight hall" surround simulation is always fun IMO.
I'm serious about the issue, I have the impression most of these scientists couldn't tell a Disco recording studio path from a rock PA system, and it might be good to change that, and especially to teach some ethics about sound pressure control and musical and harmonic conventions, considering I've met some of the guys (and galls) who "make" exclusively new "music" without feeling bothered at all by not knowing even the first thing about real music. I mean a designer of synthesizers may not have to play the piano, but musically managing the emotions of a big crowd listening to someones audio noodling without such a person being able to play a one not version of Fur Elise even, makes one wonder how good an idea it is to positively assume the hypothesis that these guys are somehow good at science and even phrasing that as a postulate, I mean I don't agree with such a direction, even if that sounds like accusing Les Paul of not wanting to have Rock music played on is guitar or something. And think about it, that really isn't a correct comparison.
Also, an environment called after the particle accelerator in physics makes me wonder *what* it is that people and machines learn from the audio experiments. Unless it's just a fancy name, of course.
Of course I'm for people making music, and playing with software after their hearts delight, but hey, it's even hard to take a Midi from the internet, and get an existing DSP machine with General Midi instruments in it to make a nice enough and un-boring cover of some hit song, let alone to create relevant art in the more deep and profound directions of the Good Studio music. Not that playing a japanese electric sax at a party is in any way wrong for me, but SCIENCE is supposed to be a bit higher than playing around with some stuff, and I wonder where the science is, and how much it is there at all!
Theo V. -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
