On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 davids@pavell.com writes:
> I'd like to know what you Csounders are currently
> interested in, I mean : what kind of style/music are you
> currently focussed on ?? Like me, for example, I am
> exploring ("studying" would be a big word, really)
> explitly the realm of rich textures, varying richness
> and also the possibilities of hovering between real
> emotions and abstract emotions, i.e. emotions wich are
> certainly feelings, but not necessairy the
> feel-happy-in-awe type of thing found in lots of ambient
> pieces, but somewhere between gestalt-like structure and
> the awe-emotion. For this I have found the work of
> Maryanne Amacher very well suited to listen to.

I have been noticing that there is a difference between
music that I like because of the "notes" and music that I
like because of the "sounds".  The music that pleases me
the most is that which satisfies both.  I guess music has
been steadily progressing from "note-oriented" to
"sound-oriented" over time.  Now, composers can have
absolute control over the finished product if they so
choose (of course, this limits the ability to put
compositions into sheet-music--has anyone been working
with alternate forms of notation recently?)  I would love
to hear what Beethoven would do with modern instruments
and recording techniques.  Anyway, for me the best modern
composer who can manage to marry notes and sounds (and
acoustic and synth too) has been Chip Davis (Fresh Aire
I-VI anyway--I have found his recent efforts to be far
less enjoyable).  I like early Chicago (1968-80 or so) for
their notes and overall sound.  I guess I like a really
crisp clearly defined sound (I feel that there's *way* too
much reverb-in-a-can going on these days).  Sorry for the
rambling...

Yours Truly,
Jason Clouse

---------------------------
  email:jhclouse@juno.com
 "Good times...GET RAW!!!"
---------------------------

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In message <19980703.185211.3454.0.jhclouse@juno.com>
          jhclouse@juno.com (Jason H Clouse) wrote:

> I have been noticing that there is a difference between
> music that I like because of the "notes" and music that I
> like because of the "sounds". 

Absolutely - the endless stream of guitar/drum/vocal based music is bound to
leave us wanting a greater variety of aural stimulation, at the waveform
level, if not the composition.

> Now, composers can have
> absolute control over the finished product if they so
> choose (of course, this limits the ability to put
> compositions into sheet-music--has anyone been working
> with alternate forms of notation recently?)

Would there be any real use to this? Shifting, say, a Csound composition to a
human-readable form (as I guess is the point of sheet music) would be
reasonably pointless since no human could ever hope to reproduce the exact
sound with any accuracy. An analogy might be the idea that the most complete
specification of what a program does is the progam itself. (That's not to
say the most "best" specification of a piece of music is its waveform...)

>  I would love
> to hear what Beethoven would do with modern instruments
> and recording techniques. 

I wonder if Beethoven would even be a composer if given modern equipment.
Perhaps his skill was limited to the orchestral and standard musical notation
domain. I'm no expert of course... ;)

-- 
 ... ben jefferys ...