On Tuesday 23 June 2009 09:27:32 Paul Davis wrote:
I don't quite agree with the only in academic research projects.
Being around quite a bit in that academic context, I find that some of the
best new interfaces (and the ones that are actually performed with) come from
artists, who make them theirselves.
Michel Waisvisz was one of the pioneers in this field, and was outside of the
academic realm; and he was an amazing performer with his instrument The Hands.
A friend of mine, Kassen, has made a live sequencing interface, based around
an arcade joystick, where he specifically chose to use his trained muscle
memory from arcade games for sequencing dancable music. He now thinks of bars
in circles, having worked on that instrument for a while.
But yes, at times I find it quite frustrating to have to program any sound I
make, rather than just play around and find something new. That's why I do
have some analog synths lying around, and occasionally, if I have the change
to play a piano, I do so (I put some of my (older) piano stuff online by the
> so not only do we have the
It is. Though in my recent work we found that it quite astonishing what people
can make, if you give them the right tools to work with.
> so much contemporary music is all based entirely
On the other hand, I find it interesting that this split between performer and
composer and technician is blurring.
A lot of it is "in the head", unfortunately.
I've started a little theory (that's what teaching DSP to art students does to
you) that you can view the progress of making an artwork like it's in the
complex (mathematical) plane: it starts totally imaginary, then it slowly gets
a real component, and sometimes it kreeps back to the imaginary again... In
the ideal case you end up with a fairly large real component, and just a
little bit of imaginary; enough to startle the imagination, but not totally
besides the point.
Linux-audio-user mailing list