Matt J. Ingalls wrote:

>         i am presently fascinated by 'poor technique' (both in my
> clarinet
> playing and eamus) although i dont like your (Richard's) metaphor - i
> think
> multiphonics require a lot of technique - much more than squeaks,
> badTone, "microtones" from wrong fingerings, etc...

Oh yes, I agree; sorry, my comment was deliberately just a little
frivolous. I am a flute player, and I was amused to see that one
multiphonic in the Bartolozzi book was simply a normal top D fingering,
underblown - something us teachers try to stop our young Grade3 players
from doing!

> and what is this obsession with technique in "art"(academic?)
> electronic
> music?

My definition of 'technique' is simply 'the ability to achieve a goal',
with a subscript - 'as efficiently and economically as possible'. Anyone
who has goals, especially in making something, needs technique, because
resources and time (for us) are finite.

> -matt
>
> (i wish cw3=tb! (sp?) was on this list!)

Richard Dobson