Victor,

You always seem to ask interesting questions, cool.
---"This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer  
music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as  
complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical  
instruction?"---  

               Yes! Because it's music, it's all about the music.


-Partev   :-)


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



--- Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie wrote:

From: Victor Lazzarini 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] ease (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Human speech is music to out ears)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:38 +0000

That brings us to an interesting question: Need computer music  
instruments (software or hardware) be 'easy to play'? This is  
something I have always asked myself. Often we hear about how  
something is either hard or easy, and whether in people's opinions  
this makes it good or bad.

In the case of traditional music instruments you don't seem to see the  
same things. OK, players can complain some music is hard to play,  
students complain that their instrument is difficult to master, etc.  
But you don't see people going to redesign a violin to make it easier  
to play; or attempts to do something like this seemed to have taken  
away so much of the expressive possibilities that they are disregarded  
as serious.

This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer  
music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as  
complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical  
instruction?

Victor


On 10 Dec 2009, at 12:06, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:

> same here. by ease, I meant practicability. some concepts can really  
> be played with only when the software supports them comprehensively,  
> else it gets very tedious. we (as composers and software developer)  
> have to reify the lower structural aspects of our composition in  
> order to use them effectively; and while these are lower in the view  
> of the composition, they are very high-level in terms of software  
> engineering.



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

This also ties in, I think, with my earlier question about how the  
technology we use influences our musical thinking.

I have a problem with concepts such as score generation - I just  
don't like the idea of handing over that much control to a machine.  
If a particular pitch is to be sounded at a particular time, then  
that should be the composer's decision. If not, where do we draw the  
line?

If the computer is taking all the decisions, what is left for the  
composer? Indeed, can someone who uses the computer in such a way  
even be called a composer? After all, anyone can press a button,  
regardless of their level - or lack - of musical training. The  
results - in my experience - have not been particularly convincing  
(witness the "Emily Howell" episode a few months ago).

I appreciate that I'm getting into some very dangerous - and highly  
subjective - territory. (I'm fully expecting an avalanche of flaming!)

There is some great work being done by composers and performers using  
computers, both as compositional tools (I repeat, as TOOLS) and as  
live processing devices. A case in point is the excellent RedArch  
Duo. The point is that there the computer is being used by a composer  
and/or performer. It is just one part of the musical toolkit - the  
most important parts of which are their skill and musicality - which  
they achieved through proper training.

Similar arguments raged in the 70s over prog rock's flirtations with  
classical music, but significantly the guilty then were generally  
trained to some degree - at the very least they had to be able to  
play an instrument. The advent of cheap preset one-finger auto- 
accompaniment keyboards in the 80s did away with even that requirement.

Possession of the technology does not instantly transform anyone into  
a composer, any more than owning a piano would turn them into a  
pianist. However, the ubiquity of the technology, and its potential  
for instant gratification (who today would spend months on realising  
a piece?) has led to too many completely untrained and ignorant  
laptop-owners claiming pretentiously to be "composers", leading many  
- wrongly - to dismiss the entire genre. With production and  
distribution so much easier than in pre-CD, pre-internet days, it  
becomes increasingly difficult to sort out the gems from the dross.

The "preset" mentality also leads to the bloating of languages such  
as Csound - a tendency towards "an opcode for everything" - I'm  
surprised no one's demanded a ringmod opcode (or is that too old- 
fashioned?). If you want everything preset and pre-coded, maybe  
Csound (or whatever) isn't the best route for you to take.

There seems to be a sort of inverted snobbery in some circles - 'you  
can't be "original" if you've been trained' - coupled with an  
attitude of contempt towards any discerning audience - as anyone who  
suffered the "Haswell Incident" at Sonorities 2004 will surely agree.

Joe

PS - the views above are entirely my own (no doubt biased) subjective  
opinions and of course apply to no one on this list!

On 13 Dec 2009, at 00:08, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:



> Victor,
>
> You always seem to ask interesting questions, cool.
> ---"This links to another question: should we not be regarding  
> 'computer
> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
> instruction?"---
>
>                Yes! Because it's music, it's all about the music.
>
>
> -Partev   :-)
>
>
> ====================================================================== 
> ====
>
>
>
> --- Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie wrote:
>
> From: Victor Lazzarini 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: [Csnd] ease (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Human speech  
> is music to out ears)
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:38 +0000
>
> That brings us to an interesting question: Need computer music
> instruments (software or hardware) be 'easy to play'? This is
> something I have always asked myself. Often we hear about how
> something is either hard or easy, and whether in people's opinions
> this makes it good or bad.
>
> In the case of traditional music instruments you don't seem to see the
> same things. OK, players can complain some music is hard to play,
> students complain that their instrument is difficult to master, etc.
> But you don't see people going to redesign a violin to make it easier
> to play; or attempts to do something like this seemed to have taken
> away so much of the expressive possibilities that they are disregarded
> as serious.
>
> This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer
> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
> instruction?
>
> Victor
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 12:06, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>
>> same here. by ease, I meant practicability. some concepts can really
>> be played with only when the software supports them comprehensively,
>> else it gets very tedious. we (as composers and software developer)
>> have to reify the lower structural aspects of our composition in
>> order to use them effectively; and while these are lower in the view
>> of the composition, they are very high-level in terms of software
>> engineering.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
> 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"

When I use a score generator, I personally determine the outcome of
every note because I design the software. If I don't like where the
notes end up, I change the software until I do like it. This does not
appear to be the situation that you are objecting to.

Regards,
Mike

On 12/13/09, Joe O'Farrell  wrote:
> This also ties in, I think, with my earlier question about how the
> technology we use influences our musical thinking.
>
> I have a problem with concepts such as score generation - I just
> don't like the idea of handing over that much control to a machine.
> If a particular pitch is to be sounded at a particular time, then
> that should be the composer's decision. If not, where do we draw the
> line?
>
> If the computer is taking all the decisions, what is left for the
> composer? Indeed, can someone who uses the computer in such a way
> even be called a composer? After all, anyone can press a button,
> regardless of their level - or lack - of musical training. The
> results - in my experience - have not been particularly convincing
> (witness the "Emily Howell" episode a few months ago).
>
> I appreciate that I'm getting into some very dangerous - and highly
> subjective - territory. (I'm fully expecting an avalanche of flaming!)
>
> There is some great work being done by composers and performers using
> computers, both as compositional tools (I repeat, as TOOLS) and as
> live processing devices. A case in point is the excellent RedArch
> Duo. The point is that there the computer is being used by a composer
> and/or performer. It is just one part of the musical toolkit - the
> most important parts of which are their skill and musicality - which
> they achieved through proper training.
>
> Similar arguments raged in the 70s over prog rock's flirtations with
> classical music, but significantly the guilty then were generally
> trained to some degree - at the very least they had to be able to
> play an instrument. The advent of cheap preset one-finger auto-
> accompaniment keyboards in the 80s did away with even that requirement.
>
> Possession of the technology does not instantly transform anyone into
> a composer, any more than owning a piano would turn them into a
> pianist. However, the ubiquity of the technology, and its potential
> for instant gratification (who today would spend months on realising
> a piece?) has led to too many completely untrained and ignorant
> laptop-owners claiming pretentiously to be "composers", leading many
> - wrongly - to dismiss the entire genre. With production and
> distribution so much easier than in pre-CD, pre-internet days, it
> becomes increasingly difficult to sort out the gems from the dross.
>
> The "preset" mentality also leads to the bloating of languages such
> as Csound - a tendency towards "an opcode for everything" - I'm
> surprised no one's demanded a ringmod opcode (or is that too old-
> fashioned?). If you want everything preset and pre-coded, maybe
> Csound (or whatever) isn't the best route for you to take.
>
> There seems to be a sort of inverted snobbery in some circles - 'you
> can't be "original" if you've been trained' - coupled with an
> attitude of contempt towards any discerning audience - as anyone who
> suffered the "Haswell Incident" at Sonorities 2004 will surely agree.
>
> Joe
>
> PS - the views above are entirely my own (no doubt biased) subjective
> opinions and of course apply to no one on this list!
>
> On 13 Dec 2009, at 00:08, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>
>
>
>> Victor,
>>
>> You always seem to ask interesting questions, cool.
>> ---"This links to another question: should we not be regarding
>> 'computer
>> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
>> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
>> instruction?"---
>>
>>                Yes! Because it's music, it's all about the music.
>>
>>
>> -Partev   :-)
>>
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> ====
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie wrote:
>>
>> From: Victor Lazzarini 
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] ease (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Human speech
>> is music to out ears)
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:38 +0000
>>
>> That brings us to an interesting question: Need computer music
>> instruments (software or hardware) be 'easy to play'? This is
>> something I have always asked myself. Often we hear about how
>> something is either hard or easy, and whether in people's opinions
>> this makes it good or bad.
>>
>> In the case of traditional music instruments you don't seem to see the
>> same things. OK, players can complain some music is hard to play,
>> students complain that their instrument is difficult to master, etc.
>> But you don't see people going to redesign a violin to make it easier
>> to play; or attempts to do something like this seemed to have taken
>> away so much of the expressive possibilities that they are disregarded
>> as serious.
>>
>> This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer
>> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
>> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
>> instruction?
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 10 Dec 2009, at 12:06, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>
>>> same here. by ease, I meant practicability. some concepts can really
>>> be played with only when the software supports them comprehensively,
>>> else it gets very tedious. we (as composers and software developer)
>>> have to reify the lower structural aspects of our composition in
>>> order to use them effectively; and while these are lower in the view
>>> of the composition, they are very high-level in terms of software
>>> engineering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>> 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"


-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Joe,

"If the computer is taking all the decisions, what is left for the 
composer?" --

Computers don't make decisions.  They can only obey.  To the extent
that you know how to instruct them, the decision _making_ is yours.

Pete

Joe O'Farrell wrote:
> This also ties in, I think, with my earlier question about how the 
> technology we use influences our musical thinking.
> 
> I have a problem with concepts such as score generation - I just don't 
> like the idea of handing over that much control to a machine. If a 
> particular pitch is to be sounded at a particular time, then that should 
> be the composer's decision. If not, where do we draw the line?
> 
> If the computer is taking all the decisions, what is left for the 
> composer? Indeed, can someone who uses the computer in such a way even 
> be called a composer? After all, anyone can press a button, regardless 
> of their level - or lack - of musical training. The results - in my 
> experience - have not been particularly convincing (witness the "Emily 
> Howell" episode a few months ago).
> 
> I appreciate that I'm getting into some very dangerous - and highly 
> subjective - territory. (I'm fully expecting an avalanche of flaming!)
> 
> There is some great work being done by composers and performers using 
> computers, both as compositional tools (I repeat, as TOOLS) and as live 
> processing devices. A case in point is the excellent RedArch Duo. The 
> point is that there the computer is being used by a composer and/or 
> performer. It is just one part of the musical toolkit - the most 
> important parts of which are their skill and musicality - which they 
> achieved through proper training.
> 
> Similar arguments raged in the 70s over prog rock's flirtations with 
> classical music, but significantly the guilty then were generally 
> trained to some degree - at the very least they had to be able to play 
> an instrument. The advent of cheap preset one-finger auto-accompaniment 
> keyboards in the 80s did away with even that requirement.
> 
> Possession of the technology does not instantly transform anyone into a 
> composer, any more than owning a piano would turn them into a pianist. 
> However, the ubiquity of the technology, and its potential for instant 
> gratification (who today would spend months on realising a piece?) has 
> led to too many completely untrained and ignorant laptop-owners claiming 
> pretentiously to be "composers", leading many - wrongly - to dismiss the 
> entire genre. With production and distribution so much easier than in 
> pre-CD, pre-internet days, it becomes increasingly difficult to sort out 
> the gems from the dross.
> 
> The "preset" mentality also leads to the bloating of languages such as 
> Csound - a tendency towards "an opcode for everything" - I'm surprised 
> no one's demanded a ringmod opcode (or is that too old-fashioned?). If 
> you want everything preset and pre-coded, maybe Csound (or whatever) 
> isn't the best route for you to take.
> 
> There seems to be a sort of inverted snobbery in some circles - 'you 
> can't be "original" if you've been trained' - coupled with an attitude 
> of contempt towards any discerning audience - as anyone who suffered the 
> "Haswell Incident" at Sonorities 2004 will surely agree.
> 
> Joe
> 
> PS - the views above are entirely my own (no doubt biased) subjective 
> opinions and of course apply to no one on this list!
> 
> On 13 Dec 2009, at 00:08, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Victor,
>>
>> You always seem to ask interesting questions, cool.
>> ---"This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer
>> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
>> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
>> instruction?"---
>>
>>                Yes! Because it's music, it's all about the music.
>>
>>
>> -Partev   :-)
>>
>>
>> ========================================================================== 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie wrote:
>>
>> From: Victor Lazzarini 
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] ease (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Human speech is 
>> music to out ears)
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:38 +0000
>>
>> That brings us to an interesting question: Need computer music
>> instruments (software or hardware) be 'easy to play'? This is
>> something I have always asked myself. Often we hear about how
>> something is either hard or easy, and whether in people's opinions
>> this makes it good or bad.
>>
>> In the case of traditional music instruments you don't seem to see the
>> same things. OK, players can complain some music is hard to play,
>> students complain that their instrument is difficult to master, etc.
>> But you don't see people going to redesign a violin to make it easier
>> to play; or attempts to do something like this seemed to have taken
>> away so much of the expressive possibilities that they are disregarded
>> as serious.
>>
>> This links to another question: should we not be regarding 'computer
>> music' as a field of study and development that is every bit as
>> complex and with long-term-development goals as standard musical
>> instruction?
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>
>> On 10 Dec 2009, at 12:06, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>
>>> same here. by ease, I meant practicability. some concepts can really
>>> be played with only when the software supports them comprehensively,
>>> else it gets very tedious. we (as composers and software developer)
>>> have to reify the lower structural aspects of our composition in
>>> order to use them effectively; and while these are lower in the view
>>> of the composition, they are very high-level in terms of software
>>> engineering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body 
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>> 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"

On 13 Dec 2009, at 23:54, Michael Gogins wrote:

> When I use a score generator, I personally determine the outcome of
> every note because I design the software. If I don't like where the
> notes end up, I change the software until I do like it. This does not
> appear to be the situation that you are objecting to.


Absolutely - my issue is with people who have no idea what the  
outcome will be until they hear it (even in general terms) then claim  
to be "composers". I do the same as you except that I hand-code the  
score file - there was no other option when I learned Csound! (Or,  
for that matter, when I studied composition). Old habits die hard, I  
suppose

My objection is not to score generation per se. I'll happily let  
software determine the fine detail of a mass texture, for example,  
just as I'd let individual members of a string orchestra play given  
patterns within a given time frame (à la Penderecki, perhaps) but  
would consider the resultant texture to be a single unified mass  
within a piece - not a composition in its own right. I realise I'm  
making a pretty fine distinction here, but it's a distinction that's  
important to ME. Setting up parameters is after all what all  
composers do (albeit often subconsciously) - but the results must  
(for me at least) ultimately be accepted or rejected according to my  
personal aesthetic judgement, not simply a random output. I have the  
same problem with Cageian "non-intention" - I admire him as a  
philosopher (and love his more deterministic pieces) but simply could  
not follow such a route myself. Whether someone likes - or hates -  
what I do,  the responsibility is mine - and I certainly won't  
inflict it on anyone else if I don't like it myself! (And certainly  
wouldn't whack all the faders up full and walk out before the end of  
a performance, as Haswell did in Belfast)

Then again, I'm a product of deterministic European classicism…

Joe

Ballynolan
Leighlinbridge
Co. Carlow
Ireland

email:	info@joeofarrell.com
web:	www.joeofarrell.com

phone:	+353 85 788 8854

skype:	joeofarrell







Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> I have a problem with concepts such as score generation - I just don't 
> like the idea of handing over that much control to a machine. If a 
> particular pitch is to be sounded at a particular time, then that should 
> be the composer's decision. If not, where do we draw the line?

This is actually a very deep question.

When you dress, you choose your clothes but you don't always make them. 
So, do you really decide your clothing style ? When you think, you 
recycle concepts you did not necessarily invent. Do you really decide 
your thoughts ? When you vote, you just choose among a very limited list 
of people. Do you really decide who is going to be your representant ? 
And when you compose classical music, you follow a lot of rules (else 
nobody can play nor even hear your music).

Whatever decision we make exists in a specific configuration of 
possibilities. Although we make the decision, it is quite rare that we 
act on the configuration itself. Most of the time we are not even 
conscious of the context of our decisions, even less are we aware that 
this context, the configuration of possibilities, can be a cultural 
artefact.

In algorithmic composition, the configuration is not implicit as in all 
the previous examples: it is very explicit, it is the software. 
Depending on the composer's relationship to the software, he is either 
creating a configuration then playing with it, which is a very creative 
and personal endeavor, or he is only making decisions within an alien 
framework, which is the case you are talking about here. In that latter 
case I agree with you.

But generally I have no idea where to draw the line.


Stef




Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 14 Dec 2009, at 03:50, Greg Schroeder wrote:

> Could you share with me some of this music that apparently uses  
> score generators in unforgivable ways?
> Even names would be fine.


Well, to give a couple of examples (though neither is strictly to do  
with score generation per se - that's just a personal dislike!):

A piece for ensemble and tape, where the ensemble was improvising (no  
material given) and the tape part consisted of a single unvarying  
sine wave. Any musical interest was the result of the performers'  
ability, and had nothing to do with the "composer"

A performance billed as "live stochastic processing", which actually  
consisted of recordings of previous performances - which in turn were  
produced by allowing Xenak to run on random. The three "performances"  
were indistinguishable - hardly surprising, given the limitations of  
that particular software. The promoters were required to hand out ear  
protectors because of the extremely high volume level at which it was  
played - the result was an hour of sheer torture. Many emerged  
swearing that they would never again go to such an event (indeed a  
fair proportion of the audience walked out before it finished).  To  
judge by the smirk on the "composer's" face as he walked out (also  
before the end - he evidently didn't want to be around afterwards)  
this was exactly the reaction he wanted. The net result was to turn  
an audience, which started out adventurous enough to try something -  
for the majority - unusual, permanently against the whole idea of  
electronic music. What good does that do the genre?

I do not in any way imply that such is the norm - merely that such  
charlatans give the genre a bad name, to the extent that few casual  
music lovers can be bothered to make the effort to explore it.

Neither is this the only genre in which such abuses can be found -  
let's not forget the inordinately convoluted explanations that were  
the trademark of (third-rate) serialists or the equally meaningless  
drivel written by (again, third-rate) minimalists. (Both, of course,  
further examples of allowing process to take precedence over musical  
judgement).

Joe


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>> I have a problem with concepts such as score generation - I just don't 
>> like the idea of handing over that much control to a machine. If a 
>> particular pitch is to be sounded at a particular time, then that 
>> should be the composer's decision. If not, where do we draw the line?
..
> 
> But generally I have no idea where to draw the line.
> 

Why draw a line at all, anwhere? What's the worst, really, that can 
happen? In all the millennia past, wherein intuition/feeling has forever 
been juxtaposed with rule-making, the sky has yet to fall in.

Richard Dobson




Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> Why draw a line at all, anwhere? What's the worst, really, that can 
> happen? In all the millennia past, wherein intuition/feeling has forever 
> been juxtaposed with rule-making, the sky has yet to fall in.

Right. Nothing new under the sun..





Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

And then there are intentions and accidents. I tend to the view that  
much interesting music arises from the mixture of them:  [intentions,  
decisions, instructions, accidents, cultural relativities]

Issues to do with the relationships between tools and beings are  
discussed at length by Martin Heidegger. (Nearness to hand, readiness  
to hand etc)
and Idhe's discussion on post-phenomenology has some useful things to  
say on the different relationships between tools and beings as the  
complexity of tools significantly increases.

David
On 14/12/2009, at 1:14 PM, PMA wrote:

>
> Joe,
>
> "If the computer is taking all the decisions, what is left for the  
> composer?" --
>
> Computers don't make decisions.  They can only obey.  To the extent
> that you know how to instruct them, the decision _making_ is yours.
>
> Pete
...

________________________________________________
Dr David Worrall.
- Experimental Polymedia:	  worrall.avatar.com.au
- Sonification: www.sonifiction.com.au
- Education for Financial Independence: www.mindthemarkets.com.au








Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

That is, if you can understand what he is going on about. For many  
years I tried, not sure I got anywhere ;)
On 15 Dec 2009, at 01:05, DavidW wrote:

> Issues to do with the relationships between tools and beings are  
> discussed at length by Martin Heidegger. (Nearness to hand,  
> readiness to hand etc)



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 15/12/2009, at 9:41 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:

> That is, if you can understand what he is going on about. For many  
> years I tried, not sure I got anywhere ;)
> On 15 Dec 2009, at 01:05, DavidW wrote:
>
>> Issues to do with the relationships between tools and beings are  
>> discussed at length by Martin Heidegger. (Nearness to hand,  
>> readiness to hand etc)
>


Yep, he's a bit dense - and often difficult to understand - mostly  
because the ideas are tricky and translations vary in quality.

Heidegger  is an important philosopher for our purposes (as is his  
pupil Merleau-Ponty) because he examines in some detail the  
relationship between beings and machines. There's a series of utube  
interviews about Heidegger with Hubert Dreyfus from the philosophy  
dept. at Berkeley. And the audio of his lectures on Being and TIme are  
also available. I've made a series of links to this material here:
http://www.avatar.com.au/blog/?page_id=65

When Heidegger was writing, machines were analog. More recently  
philosophers such as Ildhe have explored the being-machine  
relationship with more complex, digital, machines.

Dreyfus has had/is having an influence on cognitive science (and thus,  
by extension algorithmic composition) by, for eg, enunciating a non- 
purely cognitive position which pushes the limits of the connectionist  
modelling so favoured by computer music composers in the latter 1/4 of  
the 20 C. See his What Computers Can't Do and What Computers Still  
Can't Do.

D.

________________________________________________
Dr David Worrall.
- Experimental Polymedia:	  worrall.avatar.com.au
- Sonification: www.sonifiction.com.au
- Education for Financial Independence: www.mindthemarkets.com.au








Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"