From Michael Upton Sent Tue, Dec 29th 1998, 21:03
From Michael Upton Sent Tue, Dec 29th 1998, 21:03
On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, Alex Reynolds wrote: Heh, just a small note to let Alex know someone read this. :-) | Before mass-production, instruments were sold | on the basis of custom requirements of the | musician. The design of the instrument was | determined solely by the mechanical sound | qualities demanded by the user/musician. Why? | One, because of the hand-crafted nature of | instrument manufacturing; and two, because of | the economics of the the music industry. Not | everyone had the cash or skills to own or make | these items. | Because the musician was playing live to the | audience, each performance was a unique, | one-time function grounded in the cultural | base of the audience, the emotional makeup of | the musician, and the time and surroundings in | which both the artist and audience interacted. | By contrast, the output from and design of the | mass-produced, MIDI-based instrument is | dependent less on the requirements of the | user/musician than on the whims of the | programmer/music industry. To get back to the | user interface metaphor, the human user takes | from the digital instrument only those sounds | which the programmer will allow, within the | boundaries of certain user-controllable | variables, such as attack, delay, etc. While this is all very Markus Popp, and quite a good point, I think the comparison ignores a lot. Yes, the parameters of music production are restricted by the creator of the means of production. Yes, "in the old days" those parameters were customised more. However, where I think your comparison falls down is in the fact that the basic canvas of sound available, using manufactured software, or otherwise, has become absolutely vast in comparison to "back then". I mean this both in terms of what is socially permissable and practically available. I guess this is something that can never be falsified, but I would suggest that the possible range of nuances one could obtain from a custom-made acoustic instrument, performing in a few limited contexts (eg. folk dance, parlour performance, concert hall, religious ceremony), would be nothing compared to what one can pull out of a MIDI setup and a sampler at a small self-funded gig, or on a similar self-funded recording. I view MIDI as a means of organising sound. I think there are closer analogies in either the written score or a tape deck than there are with instruments per se. Perhaps I am biased by using MIDI to trigger hardware, but, there you go. Anyway, I realise this is tangential to Alex's point, but I think it also undermines what he has to say. Not that I agree with Peter Green. Music is music. Mostly it's entertainment. Mostly it's impersonal. Bla bla. Michael ____________________________________________ "Also, he has automatic evasion devices" http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~michael/jj.html