2008/7/9 Julian Rohrhuber <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 - 17:58:40 BST