Yes, I agree, especially because I don't think there is anything pure really.
Ok, but I would like to continue to ask around a bit:
* what is thought ?
* what is public thought ?
* what is the difference between playing, acting, and thinking ?
>2008/7/9 Julian Rohrhuber
><<mailto:rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de>rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de>:
>
>
>Maybe a tentative approach would be to say that it starts when it is
>public thought, i.e. where new concepts are formed. Then it depends
>on the observer/player. Another would be to say it starts where the
>elements that form the sounds are not related by a simple direct
>mapping, but by higher order abstractions.
>
>
>Yes, those are my thoughts as well... but if Alex were to claim his
>video clearly demonstrated "public thought" I'd have to agree with
>him as well and you can have "higher order mappings" (to some
>admittedly low degree) in sequencing for example in trackers or in
>Antimon's "comandline sequencer". Or for example in re-patching a
>Serge TKB. We know what we mean but I don't think it's so easy to
>define it in some non-ambiguous way.
>
>I don't think that's bad at all, BTW. Hybrid systems are
>interesting. For ChucK there's the "non specific" side to the
>Audicle that has a more or less traditional sequencer interface that
>can then trigger behaviour in code. I'm also reminded of Luc's (I
>think he's on the list now as well?) performance in Utrecht where he
>made use of MAX/MSP's graphical nature to build a slider-based
>sequencer and proceeded to play that combined with changing it's
>workings. There's probably a lot more done but those are the ones
>that pop up in my head right now.
>
>I imagine this connecting of levels of scope, of higher and lower
>order influence could be a good way of "getting the thought to the
>public", that's still a tricky fronteer in "public thought".
>
>
>Yours,
>Kas.
--
.
Received on Wed Jul 09 2008 - 21:13:42 BST