"Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often 
manufactured"---- Yes,... manufactured by culture and whatever else goes
with creating a frame of reference. 

My grandmother never could understand why I didn't do music more in 
keeping with the music of my ancestors. Why do I play guitars, strings 
and keyboards instead of an Oud or a Duduk? It was beyond grandma's
comprehension, beyond her frame of reference and so, beyond her grasp.
---- It's my cultural frame of reference!

My ancestors are from Armenia, but I was born and raised in Southern
California. I studied music in schools most of my life, and it's from the 
European Western frame of reference, from Medieval Europe (pre Bach) thru 
Common Pratice Classical (Mozart, Brahms, Mahler) to the Impressionists 
(Debussy, Stravinsky) to the most weird/avante garde/modern music of today 
(Tangerine Dream, Carlos, Cage, La Monte Young, Partch, Usechevshy, et al).

Western, not mid east music was what my frame of reference is,
.... my western cultural frame of reference, my manufactured perceived 
value, regarding music.

BTW--- being artist and musician too, I can relate. Visual colors and 
forms, audio colors and forms,.... outstanding stuff we engage in!


-Partev


=======================================================================


--- mrhoades@perceptionfactory.com wrote:

From: Michael Rhoades 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] Re: [OT] Why do we hate modern classical music?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:15:05 -0500

Great response Dave,

Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often 
manufactured.

In presenting concerts to the general public (i.e. outside academia), 
though I have had very good press, I have found audiences to be small. 
These days everyone is extremely busy and to get people to leave their 
homes, even if they are interested, after a long day there has to be a 
compelling reason. Recognition is usually that reason, which is 
manufactured. Marketing.

Being both a painter and a composer, and using a similar approach for 
both, it is obvious to me that people in general are very much more 
interested in the paintings than the music. I consider it likely that 
since everyone is extremely busy they cannot slow down enough to spend 
the time it would require to delve into a piece of music and really get 
to know it. Sure there is much popular music today. For most of it, if 
you listen to the first 20 seconds you know the entire song. Land of 
short attention span. The music and the paintings I create both require 
this in-depth involvement in order to be completely experienced. But the 
paintings do provide an opportunity for a person to get a quick glance 
and then walk away. The music does not.  I think that is in large part 
why new visual art is often more acceptable than sound art.

I am at peace with my creations. I paint and compose for myself. I make 
the images and colors that I want to see and I make the sounds and 
sequences that I want to hear. If someone else would like to hear it... 
icing on the cake... either way, it does not effect what I am doing.



On 11/29/10 8:33 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Greg Schroeder wrote:
>> I stumbled across this Miller Puckette essay awhile back and found it
>> enlightening.
>> http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/m209/puckette.html
>>
>
> MP wrote:
>
> "... the 12 tone system appears to be a mere aberration brought on by 
> our insistence on sticking with the composer/paper/musician model long 
> after it became unviable."
>
> Umm, *which* 12-tone system does he mean ? The "classical" 12-tone of 
> Schoenberg's early dodecaphonic ventures, or his use of the system in 
> Moses Und Aaron ? Babbitt's time-point system ? The 12-tone system of 
> George Rochberg's Serenata d'Estata ? Hauer's tropes ? Wolpe's "total 
> chromatic" ? Copland's use of it ? Roger Sessions' methods ? The 
> serialism of Boulez ? I ask, because these composer are remarkably 
> different from one another in their works, which at least points to 
> some flexibility of the system. And btw, the 12-tone system became 
> "unviable" exactly when ? The argument is a straw man anyway. The 
> 12-tone system is just one more tool in the composer's kit, useful for 
> some things, not so useful for others.
>
> Btw, I never took the university trip. I dropped out of college after 
> one semester and took private lsesons from that time on. At least I 
> avoided the scenario MP describes, and I found my own way into 
> contemporary music. (Modus Novus helped a lot.)
>
> Rochberg decided to go renegade and returned to tonality. And of 
> course, there were and have always been plenty of modern pieces in 
> well-worn keys and meters that could be played by contemporary groups. 
> But why pay a living composer when we can endlessly recycle the 
> antique characters - including apparently their students, their 
> uncles, and their old teachers, none of whom made music worth a fart, 
> but it all takes up valuable air time, and none of it costs the 
> purveyors one penny. Tonal or no, living composers charge fees for 
> their works, a real annoyance that can be avoided simply by ignoring 
> them in favor of the trifles of Telemann or the newly discovered and 
> wholly predictable sonatas by Hummell's brother-in-law.
>
> I also find it interesting that painters and sculptors can get away 
> with highly abstract approaches to their materials. The public neither 
> knows nor cares about historical continuity in such works, they 
> respond simply to colors and shapes per se, without restricting 
> painting and sculpture to some Soviet-style "work of & for the folk". 
> But when it comes to music it seems that we must have a simple meter, 
> we must have recognizable tonality (i.e. it must remind us of what we 
> know and like already), it must have a singable melody, and above all 
> it mustn't bother us while we sleep.
>
> Eliot's dictum that "no 'vers' is 'libre' enough for the man who has 
> something to say" seems relevant here. Schoenberg *evolved* 
> dodecaphony precisely because he felt he'd reached a limit to the 
> expressiveness of his available tools.
>
> "In short, must a song always be a song ?" (C. Ives)
>
> While I admire and respect Miller Puckette in many ways, when it comes 
> to music I'll tend towards Ives. And hey, I might even use Miller's 
> tools for my utterly unpopular work.
>
> And I'll just sing and play my guitar if I want recognition from the 
> public.
>
> "Give them a jig and a tale of bawdry, else they sleep." (W. 
> Shakespeare on his contemporary audience.)
>
> Best,
>
> dp


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"





_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

"... the 12 tone system appears to be a mere aberration brought on by 
> our insistence on sticking with the composer/paper/musician model long 
> after it became unviable."I am unaware of the context of this quote (though no doubt I could find it if I searched Nabble), but as an isolated quote I would guess this refers to 12-TET itself, not Schoenberg 12-tone style serial composition.Brian 		 	   		  

Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools 
to work with... possibilities never before dreamed of at our finger 
tips. The only limitation is that which we thrust upon ourselves. To the 
extent we can let go of preconception we are free to create a new 
definition of "music".

 From my perspective, the past has produced, and is still producing, 
some beautiful work and I respect it and love it. Yet, I feel that I am 
here to go far beyond it. To act, as much as possible, free of these 
established paradigms including culture and expectations... free of the 
influence of conditioning... to expand the consciousness of the 
multiverse....

Let's consider a new music. One that releases the knowledge of what a 
musical note is and visualizes sound as events. Traditional musical 
relationships, i.e. scales, notes, dynamics and etc. are now quite 
archaic with regard to the tools we use. Frequency, duration, timbre, 
density, amplitude, the interaction of precisely stipulated sound events 
all have taken on a new meaning through an exponential expansion of 
potential. The lines between sight and sound blur as we conceive of  
quantum level inter-relationships between the two.

To my beloved grandmother I tried to explain this and yet she too was 
unable to understand... as are the majority of people in general... 
Should we be surprised that concert attendance is scant at best? Yet she 
encouraged me on...

In our society the focus is upon results. Making a product that is 
marketable... fine but I am not interested in that. The best way I could 
describe my feelings are those of "spirit expressing". The selfless 
expression that comes from letting go of identity, the idea of a certain 
result, attainment of any form of gratification.... instead simply 
creating for the sake of it. The destination is not the goal... it is 
the journey... there is the truth of it.... therein lies the joy.



On 12/12/10 12:56 AM, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
> "Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often
> manufactured"---- Yes,... manufactured by culture and whatever else goes
> with creating a frame of reference.
>
> My grandmother never could understand why I didn't do music more in
> keeping with the music of my ancestors. Why do I play guitars, strings
> and keyboards instead of an Oud or a Duduk? It was beyond grandma's
> comprehension, beyond her frame of reference and so, beyond her grasp.
> ---- It's my cultural frame of reference!
>
> My ancestors are from Armenia, but I was born and raised in Southern
> California. I studied music in schools most of my life, and it's from the
> European Western frame of reference, from Medieval Europe (pre Bach) thru
> Common Pratice Classical (Mozart, Brahms, Mahler) to the Impressionists
> (Debussy, Stravinsky) to the most weird/avante garde/modern music of today
> (Tangerine Dream, Carlos, Cage, La Monte Young, Partch, Usechevshy, et al).
>
> Western, not mid east music was what my frame of reference is,
> .... my western cultural frame of reference, my manufactured perceived
> value, regarding music.
>
> BTW--- being artist and musician too, I can relate. Visual colors and
> forms, audio colors and forms,.... outstanding stuff we engage in!
>
>
> -Partev
>
>
> =======================================================================
>
>
> ---mrhoades@perceptionfactory.com  wrote:
>
> From: Michael Rhoades
> To:csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: [OT] Why do we hate modern classical music?
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:15:05 -0500
>
> Great response Dave,
>
> Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often
> manufactured.
>
> In presenting concerts to the general public (i.e. outside academia),
> though I have had very good press, I have found audiences to be small.
> These days everyone is extremely busy and to get people to leave their
> homes, even if they are interested, after a long day there has to be a
> compelling reason. Recognition is usually that reason, which is
> manufactured. Marketing.
>
> Being both a painter and a composer, and using a similar approach for
> both, it is obvious to me that people in general are very much more
> interested in the paintings than the music. I consider it likely that
> since everyone is extremely busy they cannot slow down enough to spend
> the time it would require to delve into a piece of music and really get
> to know it. Sure there is much popular music today. For most of it, if
> you listen to the first 20 seconds you know the entire song. Land of
> short attention span. The music and the paintings I create both require
> this in-depth involvement in order to be completely experienced. But the
> paintings do provide an opportunity for a person to get a quick glance
> and then walk away. The music does not.  I think that is in large part
> why new visual art is often more acceptable than sound art.
>
> I am at peace with my creations. I paint and compose for myself. I make
> the images and colors that I want to see and I make the sounds and
> sequences that I want to hear. If someone else would like to hear it...
> icing on the cake... either way, it does not effect what I am doing.
>
>
>
> On 11/29/10 8:33 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
>> Greg Schroeder wrote:
>>> I stumbled across this Miller Puckette essay awhile back and found it
>>> enlightening.
>>> http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/m209/puckette.html
>>>
>> MP wrote:
>>
>> "... the 12 tone system appears to be a mere aberration brought on by
>> our insistence on sticking with the composer/paper/musician model long
>> after it became unviable."
>>
>> Umm, *which* 12-tone system does he mean ? The "classical" 12-tone of
>> Schoenberg's early dodecaphonic ventures, or his use of the system in
>> Moses Und Aaron ? Babbitt's time-point system ? The 12-tone system of
>> George Rochberg's Serenata d'Estata ? Hauer's tropes ? Wolpe's "total
>> chromatic" ? Copland's use of it ? Roger Sessions' methods ? The
>> serialism of Boulez ? I ask, because these composer are remarkably
>> different from one another in their works, which at least points to
>> some flexibility of the system. And btw, the 12-tone system became
>> "unviable" exactly when ? The argument is a straw man anyway. The
>> 12-tone system is just one more tool in the composer's kit, useful for
>> some things, not so useful for others.
>>
>> Btw, I never took the university trip. I dropped out of college after
>> one semester and took private lsesons from that time on. At least I
>> avoided the scenario MP describes, and I found my own way into
>> contemporary music. (Modus Novus helped a lot.)
>>
>> Rochberg decided to go renegade and returned to tonality. And of
>> course, there were and have always been plenty of modern pieces in
>> well-worn keys and meters that could be played by contemporary groups.
>> But why pay a living composer when we can endlessly recycle the
>> antique characters - including apparently their students, their
>> uncles, and their old teachers, none of whom made music worth a fart,
>> but it all takes up valuable air time, and none of it costs the
>> purveyors one penny. Tonal or no, living composers charge fees for
>> their works, a real annoyance that can be avoided simply by ignoring
>> them in favor of the trifles of Telemann or the newly discovered and
>> wholly predictable sonatas by Hummell's brother-in-law.
>>
>> I also find it interesting that painters and sculptors can get away
>> with highly abstract approaches to their materials. The public neither
>> knows nor cares about historical continuity in such works, they
>> respond simply to colors and shapes per se, without restricting
>> painting and sculpture to some Soviet-style "work of&  for the folk".
>> But when it comes to music it seems that we must have a simple meter,
>> we must have recognizable tonality (i.e. it must remind us of what we
>> know and like already), it must have a singable melody, and above all
>> it mustn't bother us while we sleep.
>>
>> Eliot's dictum that "no 'vers' is 'libre' enough for the man who has
>> something to say" seems relevant here. Schoenberg *evolved*
>> dodecaphony precisely because he felt he'd reached a limit to the
>> expressiveness of his available tools.
>>
>> "In short, must a song always be a song ?" (C. Ives)
>>
>> While I admire and respect Miller Puckette in many ways, when it comes
>> to music I'll tend towards Ives. And hey, I might even use Miller's
>> tools for my utterly unpopular work.
>>
>> And I'll just sing and play my guitar if I want recognition from the
>> public.
>>
>> "Give them a jig and a tale of bawdry, else they sleep." (W.
>> Shakespeare on his contemporary audience.)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> dp
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send emailsympa@lists.bath.ac.uk  with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send emailsympa@lists.bath.ac.uk  with body "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 14 December 2010 14:09, Michael Rhoades
 wrote:
> Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools to
> work with... possibilities never before dreamed of at our finger tips. The
> only limitation is that which we thrust upon ourselves.

I happen to disagree with this. There are always limitations imposed
on us, not only by our imagination and intellectual ability but also
by the nature of the technology itself (e.g. surround sound technology
is hardly perfect) and the nature of the medium (e.g. a sustained low
frequency sound cannot be "spatialized" no matter how much one panns
it around). And our physiology and perception do impose limitations
and of course so does our education.

>To the extent we can
> let go of preconception we are free to create a new definition of "music".
>
> From my perspective, the past has produced, and is still producing, some
> beautiful work and I respect it and love it. Yet, I feel that I am here to
> go far beyond it. To act, as much as possible, free of these established
> paradigms including culture and expectations... free of the influence of
> conditioning... to expand the consciousness of the multiverse....
>
> Let's consider a new music. One that releases the knowledge of what a
> musical note is and visualizes sound as events. Traditional musical
> relationships, i.e. scales, notes, dynamics and etc. are now quite archaic
> with regard to the tools we use. Frequency, duration, timbre, density,
> amplitude, the interaction of precisely stipulated sound events all have
> taken on a new meaning through an exponential expansion of potential. The
> lines between sight and sound blur as we conceive of  quantum level
> inter-relationships between the two.
>
> To my beloved grandmother I tried to explain this and yet she too was unable
> to understand... as are the majority of people in general... Should we be
> surprised that concert attendance is scant at best? Yet she encouraged me
> on...
>
> In our society the focus is upon results. Making a product that is
> marketable... fine but I am not interested in that. The best way I could
> describe my feelings are those of "spirit expressing". The selfless
> expression that comes from letting go of identity, the idea of a certain
> result, attainment of any form of gratification.... instead simply creating
> for the sake of it. The destination is not the goal... it is the journey...
> there is the truth of it.... therein lies the joy.
>
>
>
> On 12/12/10 12:56 AM, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>
>> "Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often
>> manufactured"---- Yes,... manufactured by culture and whatever else goes
>> with creating a frame of reference.
>>
>> My grandmother never could understand why I didn't do music more in
>> keeping with the music of my ancestors. Why do I play guitars, strings
>> and keyboards instead of an Oud or a Duduk? It was beyond grandma's
>> comprehension, beyond her frame of reference and so, beyond her grasp.
>> ---- It's my cultural frame of reference!
>>
>> My ancestors are from Armenia, but I was born and raised in Southern
>> California. I studied music in schools most of my life, and it's from the
>> European Western frame of reference, from Medieval Europe (pre Bach) thru
>> Common Pratice Classical (Mozart, Brahms, Mahler) to the Impressionists
>> (Debussy, Stravinsky) to the most weird/avante garde/modern music of today
>> (Tangerine Dream, Carlos, Cage, La Monte Young, Partch, Usechevshy, et
>> al).
>>
>> Western, not mid east music was what my frame of reference is,
>> .... my western cultural frame of reference, my manufactured perceived
>> value, regarding music.
>>
>> BTW--- being artist and musician too, I can relate. Visual colors and
>> forms, audio colors and forms,.... outstanding stuff we engage in!
>>
>>
>> -Partev
>>
>>
>> =======================================================================
>>
>>
>> ---mrhoades@perceptionfactory.com  wrote:
>>
>> From: Michael Rhoades
>> To:csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: [OT] Why do we hate modern classical music?
>> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:15:05 -0500
>>
>> Great response Dave,
>>
>> Perception (not possession) is 9/10 of the law. Perceived value is often
>> manufactured.
>>
>> In presenting concerts to the general public (i.e. outside academia),
>> though I have had very good press, I have found audiences to be small.
>> These days everyone is extremely busy and to get people to leave their
>> homes, even if they are interested, after a long day there has to be a
>> compelling reason. Recognition is usually that reason, which is
>> manufactured. Marketing.
>>
>> Being both a painter and a composer, and using a similar approach for
>> both, it is obvious to me that people in general are very much more
>> interested in the paintings than the music. I consider it likely that
>> since everyone is extremely busy they cannot slow down enough to spend
>> the time it would require to delve into a piece of music and really get
>> to know it. Sure there is much popular music today. For most of it, if
>> you listen to the first 20 seconds you know the entire song. Land of
>> short attention span. The music and the paintings I create both require
>> this in-depth involvement in order to be completely experienced. But the
>> paintings do provide an opportunity for a person to get a quick glance
>> and then walk away. The music does not.  I think that is in large part
>> why new visual art is often more acceptable than sound art.
>>
>> I am at peace with my creations. I paint and compose for myself. I make
>> the images and colors that I want to see and I make the sounds and
>> sequences that I want to hear. If someone else would like to hear it...
>> icing on the cake... either way, it does not effect what I am doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/10 8:33 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg Schroeder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I stumbled across this Miller Puckette essay awhile back and found it
>>>> enlightening.
>>>> http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/m209/puckette.html
>>>>
>>> MP wrote:
>>>
>>> "... the 12 tone system appears to be a mere aberration brought on by
>>> our insistence on sticking with the composer/paper/musician model long
>>> after it became unviable."
>>>
>>> Umm, *which* 12-tone system does he mean ? The "classical" 12-tone of
>>> Schoenberg's early dodecaphonic ventures, or his use of the system in
>>> Moses Und Aaron ? Babbitt's time-point system ? The 12-tone system of
>>> George Rochberg's Serenata d'Estata ? Hauer's tropes ? Wolpe's "total
>>> chromatic" ? Copland's use of it ? Roger Sessions' methods ? The
>>> serialism of Boulez ? I ask, because these composer are remarkably
>>> different from one another in their works, which at least points to
>>> some flexibility of the system. And btw, the 12-tone system became
>>> "unviable" exactly when ? The argument is a straw man anyway. The
>>> 12-tone system is just one more tool in the composer's kit, useful for
>>> some things, not so useful for others.
>>>
>>> Btw, I never took the university trip. I dropped out of college after
>>> one semester and took private lsesons from that time on. At least I
>>> avoided the scenario MP describes, and I found my own way into
>>> contemporary music. (Modus Novus helped a lot.)
>>>
>>> Rochberg decided to go renegade and returned to tonality. And of
>>> course, there were and have always been plenty of modern pieces in
>>> well-worn keys and meters that could be played by contemporary groups.
>>> But why pay a living composer when we can endlessly recycle the
>>> antique characters - including apparently their students, their
>>> uncles, and their old teachers, none of whom made music worth a fart,
>>> but it all takes up valuable air time, and none of it costs the
>>> purveyors one penny. Tonal or no, living composers charge fees for
>>> their works, a real annoyance that can be avoided simply by ignoring
>>> them in favor of the trifles of Telemann or the newly discovered and
>>> wholly predictable sonatas by Hummell's brother-in-law.
>>>
>>> I also find it interesting that painters and sculptors can get away
>>> with highly abstract approaches to their materials. The public neither
>>> knows nor cares about historical continuity in such works, they
>>> respond simply to colors and shapes per se, without restricting
>>> painting and sculpture to some Soviet-style "work of&  for the folk".
>>> But when it comes to music it seems that we must have a simple meter,
>>> we must have recognizable tonality (i.e. it must remind us of what we
>>> know and like already), it must have a singable melody, and above all
>>> it mustn't bother us while we sleep.
>>>
>>> Eliot's dictum that "no 'vers' is 'libre' enough for the man who has
>>> something to say" seems relevant here. Schoenberg *evolved*
>>> dodecaphony precisely because he felt he'd reached a limit to the
>>> expressiveness of his available tools.
>>>
>>> "In short, must a song always be a song ?" (C. Ives)
>>>
>>> While I admire and respect Miller Puckette in many ways, when it comes
>>> to music I'll tend towards Ives. And hey, I might even use Miller's
>>> tools for my utterly unpopular work.
>>>
>>> And I'll just sing and play my guitar if I want recognition from the
>>> public.
>>>
>>> "Give them a jig and a tale of bawdry, else they sleep." (W.
>>> Shakespeare on his contemporary audience.)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> dp
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send emailsympa@lists.bath.ac.uk  with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send emailsympa@lists.bath.ac.uk  with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Of course this statement is meant to be idealistic... to an extent... 
and yet education is double edged sword. In the beginning it is an 
enabler and then later it is a limitation. For instance, we immediately 
dismiss the possibility that we can spatialize low freq sound. It cannot 
be done... However, have you seen this TED talk? 
http://www.ted.com/talks/woody_norris_invents_amazing_things.html Woody 
Norris did not buy into the education that we cannot spatialize low 
freqs. He is very specifically projecting sound in a very wide freq 
range. (Very interesting implications to our musical pursuits BTW) So I 
stand by my statement... To the extent we are able to let go of our 
conditioning... to that extent we are free to go beyond it.




On 12/14/10 9:24 AM, peiman khosravi wrote:
> On 14 December 2010 14:09, Michael Rhoades
>   wrote:
>> Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools to
>> work with... possibilities never before dreamed of at our finger tips. The
>> only limitation is that which we thrust upon ourselves.
> I happen to disagree with this. There are always limitations imposed
> on us, not only by our imagination and intellectual ability but also
> by the nature of the technology itself (e.g. surround sound technology
> is hardly perfect) and the nature of the medium (e.g. a sustained low
> frequency sound cannot be "spatialized" no matter how much one panns
> it around). And our physiology and perception do impose limitations
> and of course so does our education.



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Regardless, I am sure you would agree that there are physical and
perceptual limits with regard to the projection of sound within
listening space. You could of course pan a 50 Hz sound around but that
is not the same as it being (1) perceptually relevant and (2)
artistically desirable. In the same way you could have a 200 part
polyphony but perceptually that is no longer a polyphony but a mass
texture. Your statement is like Schoenberg's when he stated that there
is no such thing as dissonance. It is not just education, and not just
physiology or perception, but a complex mixture of many different
dimensions. So I always find sweeping statements about the lack of
limitations worrying. After all there is so much power a speaker can
represent, isn't that a limitations? Anyways, in the end as an artist
one needs to have self imposed limitations. It is important for
composers to deal with reality and its limitations, that's what
technology is for (and that's why every composer should study
acoustics, psychoacoustics and music psychology). Without cultural
grounding (e.g. a form of limitation brought on through
education/exposure) there will be no shared experience and music will
become meaningless (or just unmusical). Expectations do exist, that
does not mean that composers should satisfy them but they should have
a good reason if they don't - i.e. they should be aware of these
expectations instead of disregarding them as junk in the first place.

Best,

Peiman



On 14 December 2010 14:43, Michael Rhoades
 wrote:
> Of course this statement is meant to be idealistic... to an extent... and
> yet education is double edged sword. In the beginning it is an enabler and
> then later it is a limitation. For instance, we immediately dismiss the
> possibility that we can spatialize low freq sound. It cannot be done...
> However, have you seen this TED talk?
> http://www.ted.com/talks/woody_norris_invents_amazing_things.html Woody
> Norris did not buy into the education that we cannot spatialize low freqs.
> He is very specifically projecting sound in a very wide freq range. (Very
> interesting implications to our musical pursuits BTW) So I stand by my
> statement... To the extent we are able to let go of our conditioning... to
> that extent we are free to go beyond it.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/14/10 9:24 AM, peiman khosravi wrote:
>>
>> On 14 December 2010 14:09, Michael Rhoades
>>   wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools to
>>> work with... possibilities never before dreamed of at our finger tips.
>>> The
>>> only limitation is that which we thrust upon ourselves.
>>
>> I happen to disagree with this. There are always limitations imposed
>> on us, not only by our imagination and intellectual ability but also
>> by the nature of the technology itself (e.g. surround sound technology
>> is hardly perfect) and the nature of the medium (e.g. a sustained low
>> frequency sound cannot be "spatialized" no matter how much one panns
>> it around). And our physiology and perception do impose limitations
>> and of course so does our education.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

You also can't overlook cultural factors. Look at what happened to
music culture in Germany when the 3rd reich took over. I would say the
overall virulently anti-intellectual and facist/militarist turn in
American and European culture is a big part of it. Just look at how
audiences in the 1960s and 1970s would take to very complex art music.
Then look at how the music culture changed with the polarization of
american society. Now we live in a near facist state, where the rich
fly their private jets without passing through any security while
ordinary people are threatened with public humiliation if they want to
fly. Ultimately it turns out that "underwear bomber" could've been
stopped before going anywhere near the airport. So the real purpose
for the gropes is to humiliate the public and get them used to being
de-humanized, the FBI already knows about all the threats because all
our phones and emails and constantly being tapped and examined.

On the other hand with the web you have more good quality music more
easily available than at any time in history. But its easy to get lost
in the crowd. The potential for musicians to impact the culture is
diminished. Music has ceased to operate as a revolutionary
counter-culture as in the 60s and 70s because its been literally
beaten into submission.

If art music became popular the authorities would have to physically
beat it into the ground. Nothing that competes with corporate culture
can be tolerated unless it is able to be easily marginalized or
appropriated for corporate marketing.

We literally live in a world-wide corporate facist state under
capitalism, where music is just one more commodity and with
auto-tuning the image of the artist trumps the actual content
completely.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools
[snip]

>   From my perspective, the past has produced, and is still producing,
> some beautiful work and I respect it and love it. Yet, I feel that I am
> here to go far beyond it.
[snip]

>  The best way I could
> describe my feelings are those of "spirit expressing". The selfless
> expression that comes from letting go of identity, the idea of a certain
> result, attainment of any form of gratification.... instead simply
> creating for the sake of it. The destination is not the goal... it is
> the journey... there is the truth of it.... therein lies the joy.

This is what music has been about for centuries. I don't see how 
anything changes today: good luck to you and all the tools you can use 
if you attend to go "far beyond" Hariprasad Chaurasia and its simple 
flute... I'd be glad you succeed, but in that sense I don't see how 
technology has anything to do with music. You can make the most 
beautiful, unsurpassable music just by singing.

To me the real change in our age is, as listeners, the availability of 
such an amazing range of different music coming from all places in time 
and space. To me still, this inspires humility, and the feeling that 
there is no meaning in the notion of progress applied to music.


Stef


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Stéphane, I agree with you to a certain extend.

The only way that the notion of progress can be applied to music is in
the way that we now understand sound and its perception. We have
indeed a better understanding of the properties of sound and its
perception. One expects that no serious composer can ignore these
scientific advances. This influences music making (and music) but does
not by any means free it from cultural packages of the past. A music
devoid of the past is simply unmusical. But the point is can such
'music' even exist?? My answer is no, because no matter how 'free' the
composer is, the listeners are still looking for coherence in relation
to their past experience of music and life.

P

2010/12/14 Stéphane Rollandin :
>
>> Yes, it is an amazing time to be alive as an artist. So many new tools
>
> [snip]
>
>>  From my perspective, the past has produced, and is still producing,
>> some beautiful work and I respect it and love it. Yet, I feel that I am
>> here to go far beyond it.
>
> [snip]
>
>>  The best way I could
>> describe my feelings are those of "spirit expressing". The selfless
>> expression that comes from letting go of identity, the idea of a certain
>> result, attainment of any form of gratification.... instead simply
>> creating for the sake of it. The destination is not the goal... it is
>> the journey... there is the truth of it.... therein lies the joy.
>
> This is what music has been about for centuries. I don't see how anything
> changes today: good luck to you and all the tools you can use if you attend
> to go "far beyond" Hariprasad Chaurasia and its simple flute... I'd be glad
> you succeed, but in that sense I don't see how technology has anything to do
> with music. You can make the most beautiful, unsurpassable music just by
> singing.
>
> To me the real change in our age is, as listeners, the availability of such
> an amazing range of different music coming from all places in time and
> space. To me still, this inspires humility, and the feeling that there is no
> meaning in the notion of progress applied to music.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> The only way that the notion of progress can be applied to music is in
> the way that we now understand sound and its perception. We have
> indeed a better understanding of the properties of sound and its
> perception.

Yes, but I would see this as a technological progress of sort...

> One expects that no serious composer can ignore these
> scientific advances.

... and so here I would disagree: tomorrow a random guy anywhere in the 
world may start beating rudimentary drums and create new and beautiful 
rhythms, with no more understanding of what perception is that what its 
ears and heart tell him.

Now you may not label such a person as a "serious composer", but since 
as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as "serious music" I will 
consider the point moot :)

> This influences music making (and music) but does
> not by any means free it from cultural packages of the past. A music
> devoid of the past is simply unmusical. But the point is can such
> 'music' even exist?? My answer is no, because no matter how 'free' the
> composer is, the listeners are still looking for coherence in relation
> to their past experience of music and life.

I definitely agree with you here.

Stef


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

"So the real purpose for the gropes is to humiliate the public and get them used to being de-humanized, the FBI already knows about all the threats because all our phones and emails and constantly being tapped and examined."
Although humiliating the public is no doubt a bonus, I would suggest the real purpose is more likely to be reduction/restriction of mobility for all except the ruling class. Either way, don't invest in airline stocks.....
BW

----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:28:32 -0800
> From: brianwredfern@gmail.com
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: [OT] Why do we hate modern classical music?
>
> You also can't overlook cultural factors. Look at what happened to
> music culture in Germany when the 3rd reich took over. I would say the
> overall virulently anti-intellectual and facist/militarist turn in
> American and European culture is a big part of it. Just look at how
> audiences in the 1960s and 1970s would take to very complex art music.
> Then look at how the music culture changed with the polarization of
> american society. Now we live in a near facist state, where the rich
> fly their private jets without passing through any security while
> ordinary people are threatened with public humiliation if they want to
> fly. Ultimately it turns out that "underwear bomber" could've been
> stopped before going anywhere near the airport. So the real purpose
> for the gropes is to humiliate the public and get them used to being
> de-humanized, the FBI already knows about all the threats because all
> our phones and emails and constantly being tapped and examined.
>
> On the other hand with the web you have more good quality music more
> easily available than at any time in history. But its easy to get lost
> in the crowd. The potential for musicians to impact the culture is
> diminished. Music has ceased to operate as a revolutionary
> counter-culture as in the 60s and 70s because its been literally
> beaten into submission.
>
> If art music became popular the authorities would have to physically
> beat it into the ground. Nothing that competes with corporate culture
> can be tolerated unless it is able to be easily marginalized or
> appropriated for corporate marketing.
>
> We literally live in a world-wide corporate facist state under
> capitalism, where music is just one more commodity and with
> auto-tuning the image of the artist trumps the actual content
> completely.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
 		 	   		  

Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

IMHO, technology is an extension of my self. A tennis racket makes the 
player's arm longer, his hand larger and more stable, provides the 
ability to whip this third arm joint and drive the ball much faster and 
precisely that he could throw it.... etc... Until the tennis racket, 
people could throw and catch a ball, which could be a lot of fun too but 
the racket took playing to a new level thus catalyzing the genesis of a 
new form of sport.

The computer is an extension of my (mind?) brain. I offload calculations 
and memory functions to it so I can attend to other aspects of the 
compositional process with greater attention. Singing is beautiful just 
like playing catch... I love to sing... but the computer lets us take 
the game to a never before possible level. Expression can take all kinds 
of form.... however until now it has not been able to take this 
beautiful new form we have to work with. So what we do with it is 
unprecedented.

It was mentioned earlier that Schoenberg said there is no such thing as 
dissonance. I happen to agree with this. Perhaps the human (mind?) brain 
was simpler in some ways in past generations and so simpler melodies and 
harmonies seemed "right" to it... and to many it still does... And it is 
true that this can be proven by scientific research and by the fact that 
although many cultures all over the globe, which had no contact with 
each other, came up with very similar frequency relationships in their 
music. But I think that as we evolve the "rightness" of things, 
frequency relationships for example, evolves with it. So what might have 
sounded dissonant in simpler days now seems quite natural or it will in 
the near future.

Paradigm changes are often slow to catch on... to be accepted... but 
that does not change the fact that they happen... A good example was the 
slow acceptance of impressionistic painting. It is now considered 
natural... but when it began it was quite dissonant. Meaning it did not 
vibrate in a way that the then current art world could accept. It took 
new generations to appreciate its merits.




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

It is too simplistic to say that dissonances are only a product of
habituation. No doubt habituation plays a large part in developing
preferences and taste - e.g. what is an acceptable/preferred optimal
amount of dissonance  for an individual. This optimal dissonance has
increased throughout the history of western music. In other words we
prefer more complexity now as you say but that does not mean that
dissonances don't exist, we are simply used to hearing them and in
fact prefer more of them!  There is such a thing as a 'sensory'
dissonance - e.g. roughness - that exists more or less independently
from culture. Just because dissonances exist it does not mean we
cannot use them, I'm by no means advocating a return to simplicity
here.

Hearing a perfect fifth is no less a consonant today than it was 400
years ago. And a semitone is today no less dissonant than it used to
be. It just happens that our musical language has evolved (better to
say changed) in such a way that we have become more and more
acquainted to dissonances, I don't see how this eliminates the
existence of dissonances though. As Grisey puts it beautifully:

"GG: I think it's important to know our perceptive limitations as
human beings. I started in the late '70s with an extremely basic
attitude towards sound -- thinking, "What is an octave? What is a
minor third? What is a dissonance? What is a consonance? Why do we
have periodicity? Aperiodicity?" And in dealing a little with
acoustics and psycho-acoustics, there were a few taboos that were
thrown away in that period. The taboo of using dissonance/consonance.
There was a period when people tended to say, "Well, there is no such
thing as a dissonance and a consonance." But you can reconsider the
question and see that they basically do exist on two levels. The first
level would be a rather physical one. It's true that we have sounds
that are more complex than others. It's true that we have timbres that
are more in a state of fusion than others. It's true that our ear
reacts differently to different stimuli. So it's true that we have an
array of possibilities that goes from the most simple to the most
complex. Now, what is cultural is what function you give to those
poles. The first attitude considers that I have this array of
possibilities from simple to very complex, and my ear won't react to a
minor third as a minor second or whatever. It will react differently.
We will react physically differently. Now the function you decide to
have within the music is cultural."
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/davidbundler/grisey.html

As for the tennis racket example I think you are confusing the cause
with the effect. I'm no sport expert but I doubt that the racket came
about because people found it difficult to throw the ball or required
more precision, it was simply an alternative. And what's more it
brings with it different sorts of problems and limitation. But it's a
game after all, games are about limitations. People still catch and
throw the ball in basketball, just to give one example. And I don't
think that's in anyway a 'lower', more simplistic game than tennis.
You could use the example of bow and arrow vs. guns for hunting. And I
would still argue that the primitive man had a much better
understanding of his surroundings than any of us do today. Sure things
have changed, we now have supermarkets, that may be a blessing or a
curse depending on how you look at it but I cannot for a moment accept
that humanity has somehow evolved, even with regard to technology. If
technology is simply functional then we do not function any better
today than the prehistoric man did. Well we live longer but then spend
a large part of that time in front of the TV, yet another amazing
piece pf technology.

So are computers good for our music? I don't know. Do they suite my
composing needs? Not really but it's the best ulternative I've found
so far....

Best,

Peiman



On 15 December 2010 00:30, Michael Rhoades
 wrote:
> IMHO, technology is an extension of my self. A tennis racket makes the
> player's arm longer, his hand larger and more stable, provides the ability
> to whip this third arm joint and drive the ball much faster and precisely
> that he could throw it.... etc... Until the tennis racket, people could
> throw and catch a ball, which could be a lot of fun too but the racket took
> playing to a new level thus catalyzing the genesis of a new form of sport.
>
> The computer is an extension of my (mind?) brain. I offload calculations and
> memory functions to it so I can attend to other aspects of the compositional
> process with greater attention. Singing is beautiful just like playing
> catch... I love to sing... but the computer lets us take the game to a never
> before possible level. Expression can take all kinds of form.... however
> until now it has not been able to take this beautiful new form we have to
> work with. So what we do with it is unprecedented.
>
> It was mentioned earlier that Schoenberg said there is no such thing as
> dissonance. I happen to agree with this. Perhaps the human (mind?) brain was
> simpler in some ways in past generations and so simpler melodies and
> harmonies seemed "right" to it... and to many it still does... And it is
> true that this can be proven by scientific research and by the fact that
> although many cultures all over the globe, which had no contact with each
> other, came up with very similar frequency relationships in their music. But
> I think that as we evolve the "rightness" of things, frequency relationships
> for example, evolves with it. So what might have sounded dissonant in
> simpler days now seems quite natural or it will in the near future.
>
> Paradigm changes are often slow to catch on... to be accepted... but that
> does not change the fact that they happen... A good example was the slow
> acceptance of impressionistic painting. It is now considered natural... but
> when it began it was quite dissonant. Meaning it did not vibrate in a way
> that the then current art world could accept. It took new generations to
> appreciate its merits.
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> As for the tennis racket example I think you are confusing the cause
> with the effect. I'm no sport expert but I doubt that the racket came
> about because people found it difficult to throw the ball or required
> more precision, it was simply an alternative. And what's more it
> brings with it different sorts of problems and limitation. But it's a
> game after all, games are about limitations. People still catch and
> throw the ball in basketball, just to give one example. And I don't
> think that's in anyway a 'lower', more simplistic game than tennis.

Very well put. +1

Stef


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Thank you to all who have responded to these comments. It has been an 
education in regard to realizing how different my views are from the 
classical perspective. Very interesting... I will go back to my hole 
now...   :)

Good luck in all things.

Michael


On 12/14/10 8:25 PM, peiman khosravi wrote:
> It is too simplistic to say that dissonances are only a product of
> habituation. No doubt habituation plays a large part in developing
> preferences and taste - e.g. what is an acceptable/preferred optimal
> amount of dissonance  for an individual. This optimal dissonance has
> increased throughout the history of western music. In other words we
> prefer more complexity now as you say but that does not mean that
> dissonances don't exist, we are simply used to hearing them and in
> fact prefer more of them!  There is such a thing as a 'sensory'
> dissonance - e.g. roughness - that exists more or less independently
> from culture. Just because dissonances exist it does not mean we
> cannot use them, I'm by no means advocating a return to simplicity
> here.
>
> Hearing a perfect fifth is no less a consonant today than it was 400
> years ago. And a semitone is today no less dissonant than it used to
> be. It just happens that our musical language has evolved (better to
> say changed) in such a way that we have become more and more
> acquainted to dissonances, I don't see how this eliminates the
> existence of dissonances though. As Grisey puts it beautifully:
>
> "GG: I think it's important to know our perceptive limitations as
> human beings. I started in the late '70s with an extremely basic
> attitude towards sound -- thinking, "What is an octave? What is a
> minor third? What is a dissonance? What is a consonance? Why do we
> have periodicity? Aperiodicity?" And in dealing a little with
> acoustics and psycho-acoustics, there were a few taboos that were
> thrown away in that period. The taboo of using dissonance/consonance.
> There was a period when people tended to say, "Well, there is no such
> thing as a dissonance and a consonance." But you can reconsider the
> question and see that they basically do exist on two levels. The first
> level would be a rather physical one. It's true that we have sounds
> that are more complex than others. It's true that we have timbres that
> are more in a state of fusion than others. It's true that our ear
> reacts differently to different stimuli. So it's true that we have an
> array of possibilities that goes from the most simple to the most
> complex. Now, what is cultural is what function you give to those
> poles. The first attitude considers that I have this array of
> possibilities from simple to very complex, and my ear won't react to a
> minor third as a minor second or whatever. It will react differently.
> We will react physically differently. Now the function you decide to
> have within the music is cultural."
> http://www.angelfire.com/music2/davidbundler/grisey.html
>
> As for the tennis racket example I think you are confusing the cause
> with the effect. I'm no sport expert but I doubt that the racket came
> about because people found it difficult to throw the ball or required
> more precision, it was simply an alternative. And what's more it
> brings with it different sorts of problems and limitation. But it's a
> game after all, games are about limitations. People still catch and
> throw the ball in basketball, just to give one example. And I don't
> think that's in anyway a 'lower', more simplistic game than tennis.
> You could use the example of bow and arrow vs. guns for hunting. And I
> would still argue that the primitive man had a much better
> understanding of his surroundings than any of us do today. Sure things
> have changed, we now have supermarkets, that may be a blessing or a
> curse depending on how you look at it but I cannot for a moment accept
> that humanity has somehow evolved, even with regard to technology. If
> technology is simply functional then we do not function any better
> today than the prehistoric man did. Well we live longer but then spend
> a large part of that time in front of the TV, yet another amazing
> piece pf technology.
>
> So are computers good for our music? I don't know. Do they suite my
> composing needs? Not really but it's the best ulternative I've found
> so far....
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
>
>
> On 15 December 2010 00:30, Michael Rhoades
>   wrote:
>> IMHO, technology is an extension of my self. A tennis racket makes the
>> player's arm longer, his hand larger and more stable, provides the ability
>> to whip this third arm joint and drive the ball much faster and precisely
>> that he could throw it.... etc... Until the tennis racket, people could
>> throw and catch a ball, which could be a lot of fun too but the racket took
>> playing to a new level thus catalyzing the genesis of a new form of sport.
>>
>> The computer is an extension of my (mind?) brain. I offload calculations and
>> memory functions to it so I can attend to other aspects of the compositional
>> process with greater attention. Singing is beautiful just like playing
>> catch... I love to sing... but the computer lets us take the game to a never
>> before possible level. Expression can take all kinds of form.... however
>> until now it has not been able to take this beautiful new form we have to
>> work with. So what we do with it is unprecedented.
>>
>> It was mentioned earlier that Schoenberg said there is no such thing as
>> dissonance. I happen to agree with this. Perhaps the human (mind?) brain was
>> simpler in some ways in past generations and so simpler melodies and
>> harmonies seemed "right" to it... and to many it still does... And it is
>> true that this can be proven by scientific research and by the fact that
>> although many cultures all over the globe, which had no contact with each
>> other, came up with very similar frequency relationships in their music. But
>> I think that as we evolve the "rightness" of things, frequency relationships
>> for example, evolves with it. So what might have sounded dissonant in
>> simpler days now seems quite natural or it will in the near future.
>>
>> Paradigm changes are often slow to catch on... to be accepted... but that
>> does not change the fact that they happen... A good example was the slow
>> acceptance of impressionistic painting. It is now considered natural... but
>> when it began it was quite dissonant. Meaning it did not vibrate in a way
>> that the then current art world could accept. It took new generations to
>> appreciate its merits.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>              https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"