| Author |
Message |
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 858
Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Low Note
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 146
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 2
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:33 am Post subject:
|
  |
|
Some of the article seemed like it was forcing the issue.
He doesn't seem entirely torn up about the change in direction, and I'm sure there aren't masses of electronic musicians who feel betrayed.
I bet his acoustic music has a lot of vivality to it, which is what's important. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:42 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| dewdrop_world wrote: | So? A composer's should follow where intuition leads.
I'm happy he's still writing, no matter which medium.
James |
What struck me was this:
| Paul Lansky wrote: | | ...Here I am, 64, and I find myself at what feels like the beginning of a career. I’m interested in writing for real people at this point.” |
'So' it is hard for me to understand how preferring one type of music over another lends more reality to oneself -- I found it a curios statement, that's all.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Low Note
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 146
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
When I read that line it rang much more as a statement discovering a whole new world of possibilities.
Its perfectly possible he's worked out everything in electronic music that he was interested in or found the limit of what electronic music could offer his creativity. He has been working pretty heavily with computers for a good long while. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Low Note wrote: | When I read that line it rang much more as a statement discovering a whole new world of possibilities.
. |
It's still not clear/meaningful to me. "much more" that than what?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 858
Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:15 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I've met Paul Lansky on a couple of occasions, and it really is true what the article says -- that he is one of the least dogmatic, most down to earth composers you'll ever meet. It may not come across in squiggles on a page (or screen), but from what I know of his personality, I have no doubt that he has no intention to disparage his own computer music or anyone else's.
The thing that struck me in the article (and this could be a factor in his decision) is the observation that the trend in computer music today is toward live synthesis and processing, while he tends to prepare pieces for a recorded medium for acousmatic diffusion. It could be that he looked at the trend, contemplated learning a very, very different way of interacting with the computer, and decided to do something else.
Anyway, I don't think he needs to explain himself. All that matters to me is whether the new pieces are rewarding to listen to. Personally I don't feel any need to invent a controversy (as the Times article almost seems to be trying to do), or to contribute to an invented controversy after the fact.
James
_________________
ddw online: http://www.dewdrop-world.net
sc3 online: http://supercollider.sourceforge.net |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I find it passing strange that all the responses to my post are defences of Lansky as if he had been attacked which he decidedly has not been. I only want to understand what he meant by:
"I’m interested in writing for real people at this point."
as at face value it makes little sense and tyring to interpret it leads in many different directions. Personally I have much sympathy with those parts I find clear. I tacked on the image only in the hope of lightening and opening this thread up. Again there is no attack here (so far) against Lansky and if there is one it certainly wont come from me.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2922
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
In the off chance anyone is interested in discussing ideas rather than personalities here is another interesting quote:
"He has come to wonder whether the future success of a piece of music depends on the pleasure musicians take in playing it, the implication being that a piece with no performers has a built-in obsolescence."
The first question that comes to mind is: Does it matter? Bach didn't write for posterity.
Jamming/live programming/etc certainly have an ephemeral aspect to them. What kind of valuative analysis is possible here? To what extent (if any) is composition analogous to bears tyring to reach high onto a tree to leave their marks for those who follow?
Really there are a number of interesting ideas raised in this piece it would be a shame for it to be categorized as pointless controversy and personality.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 858
Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 858
Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | In the off chance anyone is interested in discussing ideas rather than personalities here is another interesting quote: |
OK, great! Now we're talking about something I can respond to.
I would start here:
"He has come to wonder whether the future success of a piece of music depends on the pleasure musicians take in playing it, the implication being that a piece with no performers has a built-in obsolescence."
It's really at least a three-point communication network, between composer, performer(s) and audience(s). Sometimes the composer(s) and performer(s) are one and the same, sometimes not. One might also include the space in which music is played, or heard (which may be the same space at the same time, or not).
Performer satisfaction is important but I don't think it's sufficient by itself to ensure future success. (There is music that poses exciting, rewarding challenges to performers but leaves audiences cold -- what future success there?) And there is acousmatic music that rewards the audience, with no performers in sight.
I disagree, then, with the privileged position of the composer-performer axis. Standard fare in academia, but it puts limits on what you can conceive and realize.
James
_________________
ddw online: http://www.dewdrop-world.net
sc3 online: http://supercollider.sourceforge.net |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Low Note
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 146
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | Low Note wrote: | When I read that line it rang much more as a statement discovering a whole new world of possibilities.
. |
It's still not clear/meaningful to me. "much more" that than what? |
oops:
than
| Quote: | | how preferring one type of music over another lends more reality to oneself |
Also, I think someone in Lansky's position has some reason to consider posterity. Bach didn't worry about making a name for himself for future generations in part because at that time no composer was really discussed after they died. The pursuit for immortality through history changes the game in a way. I'm not saying that Lansky is obsessed or even considering his place in history when he writes, but it is a reality for someone who has made an impact on the development of a fairly new means of expression. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2070
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 89
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I've decided to respond to the piece rather the the responses, although I will say that I agree with Bachus' perspective pretty much. I can relate to the "seeing potential in another part of the field" aspect of this change, because I made somewhat of the opposite change myself. For 30 odd years I played various acoustic string instruments and for most of the same years I worked with both circuits and software in sophisticated ways, but I never fused the two until a few years ago. I decided it was dumb not to let these two parts of the mind/body/spirit have a go together, and saw a lot of potentially interesting work in doing so.
The parts of the article that I find odd are the exclusive OR aspects of acoustic versus electronic music. It's all acoustic, and it's all electronic, or at least electro-chemical where synapses are concerned.
| Quote: | | “To create the sound of a violin — wow!” he said in a recent interview. “I can’t do that on a computer.” |
No, and you cannot create the sound of a computer on a violin. So what? Although, I heard a string quartet at a David Byrne concert 4 years ago do an excellent job of emulating synthesizer sounds on their violins, viola and cello. By the time you realized what was happening, it was gone!
| Quote: | | I’m interested in writing for real people at this point.” |
I suppose he means performers, not listeners, unless electro listeners are not real. maybe that's what he means!
I don't see why real people cannot play real computers. I do. His statement is ambiguous enough that one could imagine it to be snotty if one didn't know better, i.e., that apparently he composed for computers to perform in batch mode, presumably. I am used to interactive computer programs from a good 1/3 century of personal experience, also married 1/3 of a century as of this coming saturday!, and both involve real people, not conceptualizations of real people.
| Quote: | | His conversion, in a sense, is a relinquishing of the need to control, the rejection of what he called an antisocial bent. What drives many creators of computer music is the desire to have total mastery over how a piece of music sounds. |
I don't know about that. I'm lucky if I can predict how performing my own electro pieces will sound, not from injection of randomness, but because I always try to couple the performance environment into the piece. It is not necessarily the case that computer performance == determinism, especially when you inject people and their performance/reaction time into the performance.
| Quote: | | Shedding electronic gear and the labor of writing computer programs is a “huge relief,” he said. “I’m digging out music in me that I couldn’t have with electronic music.” |
Well, an Acoustic Interloper can identify with that. I get tired of programming from time to time. But, I don't see a need for exclusive-either-or here. I like writing and making acoustic music. Ditto for electronic. And, there is no need to exclude humans from participation is any aspect of either. Computers, for me, are just another class of instruments.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
Posts: 858
Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
