The whole point of the computer is that it does whatever you tell it. No other instrument can do that. The computer is NOT just another instrument.

It is, of course, hard to know what to tell the computer. But composing for the computer is NOT the same as composing for instruments -- that was Lansky's whole point, after all.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: peiman khosravi 
>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 8:25 PM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>
>If I may add a few rusty old coppers to the discussion hat.
>
>One's attitude to music dictates one's attitude to sound, which in  
>turn dictates the tools needed to create the music. I don't see the  
>point of talking about the tools or technology per se, away from the  
>compositional thought processes that guide the technological usage in  
>the first place. What does computer music even mean? Music made with  
>computers? It could be a bad Mozart arrangement that uses the most  
>sophisticated physical modeling program...
>	
>If one is concerned with the conventional musical syntax ONLY, then  
>using a computer seems pointless to me as it is not born out of  
>musical necessity (there may be economic justifications). So it seems  
>more relevant to me to ask what is it that Paul Lansky is looking to  
>create, what is his attitude to music as it where? If he is happy  
>with dots on a page, that's probably because his attitude to music  
>dictates dots on a page, in fact his computer music is so concerned  
>with the conventional note-based approach that I never felt his use  
>of computer had any more than novelty value or that it was  
>compositionally justified - masterful as it may be though. Again one  
>goes back to the old-age argument that the computer is not an  
>instrument but a tool (although an instrument is a tool!!). Computer  
>can be made into an instrument but I don't see the point unless this  
>instrument somehow expands and enriches (from a blind listener's  
>point of view) the sound-world of conventional instruments. Or why  
>not get away from the concept of instruments and work directly with  
>sounds now that we can? Either way, there needs to be a reason for  
>using computers as opposed to an orchestra that is perceptually and  
>directly relevant to the listening experience.
>
>Another issue raised in the article was about the social  
>interactivity aspect of instrumental performance. What about CDs? I  
>think of Glen Gould, for what we know his recordings could all have  
>been synthesized (later dubbed for maximum effect, with him humming  
>the bass-line!). If that was the case would it be any less of a  
>performance? In fact we know that Gould's final masters were the  
>result of endless edits of many different takes, so in a way NOT  
>'real' performances.
>
>Best
>P
>
>
>On 5 Aug 2008, at 19:33,   
> wrote:
>
>> If I may add my humble thoughts, one of the wonderful things
>> about computer music is that it opens another dimension of creative
>> possibilities. While that is a great thing, it is also a curse because
>> you then not only have to worry about the notes you write
>> but also how to utilize some computer process in some aesthetically
>> pleasing. I often times think of it as composing a piano piece then
>> building your own piano and then playing your piece on that piano.
>> It can be a lot of extra work. Perhaps he is tired of having to worry
>> about such things. I can totally understand the way he feels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> ---- Christopher Watts  wrote:
>>> It's interesting to see what Lansky had to say about this almost 20
>>> years ago:
>>> http://silvertone.princeton.edu/~paul/view.html
>>>
>>> The 7th paragraph speaks more or less to this specific point.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, anybody can take a pencil and staff paper and put marks on it,
>>>> and pay a fiddler to play them. Anybody can write, anybody can
>>>> paint, anybody can compose, and anybody can think.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that education, training, and professional experience are
>>>> helpful in becoming good, if that's what you mean. But I don't see
>>>> what this has to do with the question of computer music.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Michael Bechard 
>>>>> Sent: Aug 5, 2008 12:55 PM
>>>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, any Mac user CAN compose, and has a wide range of tools with
>>>>> which to do so in the electronic realm. Whether or not those
>>>>> compositions will be good, however, is another matter entirely. I
>>>>> think the author was simply trying to allude to the democratization
>>>>> of the music making process to the masses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bechard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: luis jure 
>>>>> To: csound list 
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 8:45:56 AM
>>>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> on 2008-08-05 at 15:58 DavidW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> it is referencing this article:
>>>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/arts/emusic.php
>>>>>
>>>>> the article is worth reading for this gem:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Any Mac user can compose,"
>>>>>
>>>>> this is the art of journalism at its highest: the most complete
>>>>> idiocy
>>>>> summed up in five words. and fairly short words at that.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, paul lanksy composed one of my favorite computer pieces of all
>>>>> time, the six fantasies. i can't honestly say i like much some  
>>>>> of his
>>>>> other pieces, though. but i admire and respect him very much.  
>>>>> for the
>>>>> rest, i think a big fuzz is being made out of this, any composer
>>>>> should
>>>>> be free to follow their [*] artistic inclinations at any particular
>>>>> moment. and free also from idiotic journalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>> lj
>>>>>
>>>>> [*] please note the politically correct use of the possessive
>>>>> determiner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

But I am not speaking about the method of composing itself, rather  
the experience of the final product. If a piece sounds instrumental  
then it doesn't matter whether a computer made it or a piano, it is  
instrumental. Although the actual process of composing would be  
different on a piano and a computer the result could be the same.  
Instrumental for me has a particular meaning related to parametric  
control of values (e.g. pitch).

Best
Peiman

On 6 Aug 2008, at 03:54, Michael Gogins wrote:

> The whole point of the computer is that it does whatever you tell  
> it. No other instrument can do that. The computer is NOT just  
> another instrument.
>
> It is, of course, hard to know what to tell the computer. But  
> composing for the computer is NOT the same as composing for  
> instruments -- that was Lansky's whole point, after all.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peiman khosravi 
>> Sent: Aug 5, 2008 8:25 PM
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paul Lansky throws in the  
>> towel
>>
>> If I may add a few rusty old coppers to the discussion hat.
>>
>> One's attitude to music dictates one's attitude to sound, which in
>> turn dictates the tools needed to create the music. I don't see the
>> point of talking about the tools or technology per se, away from the
>> compositional thought processes that guide the technological usage in
>> the first place. What does computer music even mean? Music made with
>> computers? It could be a bad Mozart arrangement that uses the most
>> sophisticated physical modeling program...
>> 	
>> If one is concerned with the conventional musical syntax ONLY, then
>> using a computer seems pointless to me as it is not born out of
>> musical necessity (there may be economic justifications). So it seems
>> more relevant to me to ask what is it that Paul Lansky is looking to
>> create, what is his attitude to music as it where? If he is happy
>> with dots on a page, that's probably because his attitude to music
>> dictates dots on a page, in fact his computer music is so concerned
>> with the conventional note-based approach that I never felt his use
>> of computer had any more than novelty value or that it was
>> compositionally justified - masterful as it may be though. Again one
>> goes back to the old-age argument that the computer is not an
>> instrument but a tool (although an instrument is a tool!!). Computer
>> can be made into an instrument but I don't see the point unless this
>> instrument somehow expands and enriches (from a blind listener's
>> point of view) the sound-world of conventional instruments. Or why
>> not get away from the concept of instruments and work directly with
>> sounds now that we can? Either way, there needs to be a reason for
>> using computers as opposed to an orchestra that is perceptually and
>> directly relevant to the listening experience.
>>
>> Another issue raised in the article was about the social
>> interactivity aspect of instrumental performance. What about CDs? I
>> think of Glen Gould, for what we know his recordings could all have
>> been synthesized (later dubbed for maximum effect, with him humming
>> the bass-line!). If that was the case would it be any less of a
>> performance? In fact we know that Gould's final masters were the
>> result of endless edits of many different takes, so in a way NOT
>> 'real' performances.
>>
>> Best
>> P
>>
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2008, at 19:33, 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> If I may add my humble thoughts, one of the wonderful things
>>> about computer music is that it opens another dimension of creative
>>> possibilities. While that is a great thing, it is also a curse  
>>> because
>>> you then not only have to worry about the notes you write
>>> but also how to utilize some computer process in some aesthetically
>>> pleasing. I often times think of it as composing a piano piece then
>>> building your own piano and then playing your piece on that piano.
>>> It can be a lot of extra work. Perhaps he is tired of having to  
>>> worry
>>> about such things. I can totally understand the way he feels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> ---- Christopher Watts  wrote:
>>>> It's interesting to see what Lansky had to say about this almost 20
>>>> years ago:
>>>> http://silvertone.princeton.edu/~paul/view.html
>>>>
>>>> The 7th paragraph speaks more or less to this specific point.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, anybody can take a pencil and staff paper and put marks on  
>>>>> it,
>>>>> and pay a fiddler to play them. Anybody can write, anybody can
>>>>> paint, anybody can compose, and anybody can think.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that education, training, and professional experience are
>>>>> helpful in becoming good, if that's what you mean. But I don't see
>>>>> what this has to do with the question of computer music.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Michael Bechard 
>>>>>> Sent: Aug 5, 2008 12:55 PM
>>>>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, any Mac user CAN compose, and has a wide range of tools  
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> which to do so in the electronic realm. Whether or not those
>>>>>> compositions will be good, however, is another matter entirely. I
>>>>>> think the author was simply trying to allude to the  
>>>>>> democratization
>>>>>> of the music making process to the masses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Bechard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>> From: luis jure 
>>>>>> To: csound list 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 8:45:56 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Paul Lansky throws in the towel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 2008-08-05 at 15:58 DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is referencing this article:
>>>>>>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/arts/emusic.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the article is worth reading for this gem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Any Mac user can compose,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the art of journalism at its highest: the most complete
>>>>>> idiocy
>>>>>> summed up in five words. and fairly short words at that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, paul lanksy composed one of my favorite computer pieces  
>>>>>> of all
>>>>>> time, the six fantasies. i can't honestly say i like much some
>>>>>> of his
>>>>>> other pieces, though. but i admire and respect him very much.
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> rest, i think a big fuzz is being made out of this, any composer
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be free to follow their [*] artistic inclinations at any  
>>>>>> particular
>>>>>> moment. and free also from idiotic journalists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lj
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [*] please note the politically correct use of the possessive
>>>>>> determiner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"