Yes, there was also an article/interview with Paul Lansky in the New York Times -- I think it was yesterday, or anyway quite recently -- about this.

Needless to say, I have no argument whatsoever with Paul Lansky's decisions as a composer. I'm a big fan of his music, and I've bought recordings of most of it.

But what Lansky is saying requires discussion. I think for many of us, the major interest lies in Lansky's contention that musical performers add something quite valuable to music as such. It's not actually quite clear that Lansky's contention goes as far as "music as such," but I'm sure many people will read it that way.

I do agree that performers add something quite valuable to music as it has been made to date, or to certain specific styles of music, but I do NOT agree that performers can always add something to music "as such". In fact, I think this idea has positively harmed computer music and experimental music by diverting composers to do interactive computer music. Although I have heard some interactive computer music that I thought was very good, and although I think this style should certainly be pursued, I think that our field is definitely losing out by not focusing more on what we used to call "tape music" where the composer writes a program, or fiddles around on the computer, and produces a soundfile that is the definitive rendering of a piece of music.

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the power is in music. Not just in computer music -- in music, period. This is where the authorship is, where the composing is. You can compose the performance as well as the sound, and this is what is not acknowledged by Lansky.

Lansky also oversimplifies the situation by not mentioning or discussing what is actually the most common, indeed the dominant, methodology of making music today, which is tracking. This is a hybrid of performance and composition, where once musicians have performed -- at home, in the recording studio, or even on stage -- recordings are cut up into little pieces, processed and transformed, and re-assembled (that is, re-composed) into a simulated performance. A collage. This is not the way classical music is made -- or at least, it is not the way classical music is made on stage (although it increasingly is the way even classical music is made into recordings). But it is the way most popular music is made, and the way all film music is made. I expect that, as time goes on, the amount of skilled performance in the studio will continue to decline, leaving more and more of the musical decisions up to the composer(s). And I also expect that more and more of these decisions will be implemented algorithmically. I don't expect the amount of skilled performance to go to zero, or anything like zero, because it DOES add something vital to many styles of music. And think there will even be a revival of live performance, and not just for economic reasons.

But I also expect that the artistic importance, and popularity, of purely algorithmic music -- algorithmically synthesized, or algorithmically composed, or both -- will gradually increase. Partly for the same reasons that the artistic importance of abstraction in the visual arts has gradually increased. But even more, because the increasing power of the computer and of software will continue to vastly, vastly increase the musical resources available to the composer. I don't think it will ever take over, but I do think it will become more and more important, into the indefinite future. 

There is just no arguing with the musical power of the complete, utter, and mind-expanding abstraction that lies in the computer.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: DavidW 
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 1:58 AM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd] Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>
>Some of y'all might be interested in this thread about Paul Lansky's  
>move drop making CM which is occurring on the supercollider list:
>http://www.nabble.com/Paul-Lansky-pulls-the-plug-to18817595.html#a18823931
>
>it is referencing this article:
>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/arts/emusic.php
>(it took ages to load but that might be because the bits are slower in  
>winter)
>
>
>ciao4now
>
>David
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I think you're trying to pin too much on Lansky, here. (I know him, by  
the way, and think he's a nice guy although I never studied with him.)  
He compared himself, in the Times interview, to a filmmaker as opposed  
to a playwright--someone who is interested in completing the entire  
process of conception through finished performance. That seems to  
contradict what you say in this message.

I suppose I don't need to remind this group that Lansky has always  
been deeply involved in the human connection, the performer if you  
will, by the use of voices, performers and the imitations of those in  
his work. Since that is what interests him, the movement to distance  
himself from computer music and embrace chamber music seems a  
perfectly natural personal choice. Even a perfectly natural late- 
career choice, since he's in a position now, as a well-known composer,  
to have everything he writes performed exceptionally well.

As far as modeling performances to use them in composition--I have no  
sense that that's the "dominant" thread of musical approaches,  
although it is an exciting one. On the contrary, what I hear  
happening, still, is people exploring the possibility for  
monstrousness through the disturbing of historical expectations of  
sound. That's happening in both the interactive and pure domains,  
where tracking is just one more tool in a process that ore and more  
embraces anything that works. I'm certainly not the big expert on the  
current scene, though. Maybe others are observing other more  
significant trends.

All that to say that I agree with your conclusion: more attention  
needs to be given to the age-old problem of tape music and tape music  
presentation. The prearrangement of a performance, or the  
prearrangement of parameters for a performance that is differently  
mechanical every time are paintings and sculptures in sound that cry  
out for appropriate galleries in which to be experienced.

Respectfully yours,

--Carlton Wilkinson
Asbury Park, N.J.

On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:

> Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the power is in music.  
> Not just in computer music -- in music, period. This is where the  
> authorship is, where the composing is. You can compose the  
> performance as well as the sound, and this is what is not  
> acknowledged by Lansky.
>
> Lansky also oversimplifies the situation by not mentioning or  
> discussing what is actually the most common, indeed the dominant,  
> methodology of making music today, which is tracking. This is a  
> hybrid of performance and composition, where once musicians have  
> performed -- at home, in the recording studio, or even on stage --  
> recordings are cut up into little pieces, processed and transformed,  
> and re-assembled (that is, re-composed) into a simulated  
> performance. A collage. This is not the way classical music is made  
> -- or at least, it is not the way classical music is made on stage  
> (although it increasingly is the way even classical music is made  
> into recordings). But it is the way most popular music is made, and  
> the way all film music is made. I expect that, as time goes on, the  
> amount of skilled performance in the studio will continue to  
> decline, leaving more and more of the musical decisions up to the  
> composer(s). And I also expect that more and more of these decisions  
> will be implemented algorithmically. I don't expect the amount of  
> skilled performance to go to zero, or anything like zero, because it  
> DOES add something vital to many styles of music. And think there  
> will even be a revival of live performance, and not just for  
> economic reasons.

Based on my reading of the article/interview, I would say your point of 
being able to compose the performance is acknowledged by Lansky.  Except 
that at this point of his career, he's more interested in the power of 
collaboration and opening up the creative process to include others, 
specifically the performer.

In fact, I would argue that this is very similar to how you (Michael) 
feel about the power of algorithmic composition and the high level of 
abstraction at which you work.  In both cases, the composer is amazed 
and intrigued by how their input, which is rather removed from actual 
sound, is then transformed (either by computer or performer) into the 
final product.  To me, the biggest difference is that the acoustic 
composer usually has no input to the performer other than the score, 
whereas the CM composer typically has complete control over the 
transformative algorithms used by the computer.

Regarding tracking, you make an excellent point, although possibly 
beyond the scope of a New York Times interview.  I expect that composers 
who appreciate (or rely upon) the talents of a skilled performer are 
rather dismayed by the "advances" of recording that modern technology 
enables.  I certainly am, even as I appreciate the extra power available 
to me as an electronic composer.

I personally don't write algorithmically.  Among other reasons, I find 
it to be too much work.  Designing algorithms that produce a pleasing 
result, IMO, is *really* hard.  I certainly haven't had any success. 
However, I can, in the words of Lansky, "put dots on a page" and have 
that turned into music that I enjoy a great deal through a process (of 
performance) that I find mystical, amazing, and extremely satisfying. 
It's like magic.   There is power in collaboration as well, even if the 
composer chooses not to use it.

My 2 cents
John Lato

Michael Gogins wrote (in part):
> Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the power is in music. Not just in computer music -- in music, period. This is where the authorship is, where the composing is. You can compose the performance as well as the sound, and this is what is not acknowledged by Lansky.
> 
> Lansky also oversimplifies the situation by not mentioning or discussing what is actually the most common, indeed the dominant, methodology of making music today, which is tracking. This is a hybrid of performance and composition, where once musicians have performed -- at home, in the recording studio, or even on stage -- recordings are cut up into little pieces, processed and transformed, and re-assembled (that is, re-composed) into a simulated performance. A collage. This is not the way classical music is made -- or at least, it is not the way classical music is made on stage (although it increasingly is the way even classical music is made into recordings). But it is the way most popular music is made, and the way all film music is made. I expect that, as time goes on, the amount of skilled performance in the studio will continue to decline, leaving more and more of the musical decisions up to the composer(s). And I also expect that more and more of these decisions will
 be implemented algorithmically. I don't expect the amount of skilled performance to go to zero, or anything like zero, because it DOES add something vital to many styles of music. And think there will even be a revival of live performance, and not just for economic reasons.
> 
> But I also expect that the artistic importance, and popularity, of purely algorithmic music -- algorithmically synthesized, or algorithmically composed, or both -- will gradually increase. Partly for the same reasons that the artistic importance of abstraction in the visual arts has gradually increased. But even more, because the increasing power of the computer and of software will continue to vastly, vastly increase the musical resources available to the composer. I don't think it will ever take over, but I do think it will become more and more important, into the indefinite future. 
> 
> There is just no arguing with the musical power of the complete, utter, and mind-expanding abstraction that lies in the computer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
>