On 7 Jan 2008, at 01:18, Andrew Sorensen wrote:
> In a real-world sense we can think about this occurring when an
> experienced composer/conductor/performer reads and "hears" a
> musical score purely cerebrally. This process completely skips the
> "machine" (i.e. the instruments and players) and moves directly
> from the symbol system to a mental reification of the abstractions
> defined by the score. In short, the composer becomes able to
> fluently translate between the symbol system (the score) and the
> task domain (the sounds of the orchestra) thereby avoiding the
> machine (the players and instruments of the orchestra) altogether.
That's interesting. I agree that one can read music like this, but
would we
call it "listening"? So the question is about your word (in
quotations) "hear"
here. These are two different ways of using the word "hear".
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's passage on playing mental chess and
mental tennis. He seems to think both are possible, but for me the
former
makes sense and not the latter.
If live-coding is about the relationship between the program and the
task-
domain, it becomes a "formal art" like Chess. The sound is a
"representation"
of the thought, just like the chessboard and pieces are merely a tool
for
extended cognition (external representation) and not a necessary part of
the game.
As a musician are you happy with that conclusion?
smack smack : )
thor
Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 13:24:35 GMT