On 9/24/06, Fredrik Olofsson <f_at_fredrikolofsson.com> wrote:
>
> anyway - getting back on topic - maybe showing the software editors is
> a sort of a substitute for the nestling patchcords in the analogue
> days? tech is part of their concept and the tools is the message. and
> they are happy to show them.
> i think performing live coding on stage has great deal of this. the
> tech fetishism. is that something to try to avoid or part of the
> deal/fun i wonder...
I thought about that too but there are differences. When you had images of a
musician in the 60s posing with a impressive array of instruments this had a
differend context then showing a softsynth interface now.
For one thing those intruments were well out of the reach of the audience
finantially and I think some of the apeal came from it not being quite clear
how they worked or what was done with them. For many "synthesiser music"
recordings of that period this may be quite fornunate because IMHO many
hardly go beyond the stage of demonstrating what a arpegiator does. Of
cource there is fetishim; the performers themselves seem quite impressed by
the instruments and base fundamental parts of their compositions on features
of those.
I think livecoding, even if it indeed also glorifies the tool, is different
in that we are actively trying to break down the mystery of the instrument
in order to show the performance itself. Wether we are being sucessfull in
this so far and indeed wether it has any chance of success at all is another
matter but I feel it's worth trying.
I would argue that the tech fetshism of the 60's and 70's depended at least
in part on the instruments being hard to obtain while livecoding at the very
least *benefits* from the tools being free as well as open. If SC or ChucK
or similar systems would cost 10.000$ and require a handmade laptop as well
as depend on employing a engineer the situation would be quite differend.
The people that I know that were around back then and listened to that music
all tell about a longing for those unobtainable instruments was a part of
it. Our instruments for the most part are freely available to anybody who
cares to download them. I think showing schreens is different if they
audience has the option of going home and imediately and for free try their
own hand at it. For one thing I suspect it would lead to them paying more
atention of that option is there.
In the case of Tangerine Dream and Vorhaus performing now and showing their
schreens I think it's a different sort of tech-fetishism then posing with a
Buchla or Moog. Even if Vaz and similar systems aren't free, they are at
least generally avaible and within the reach of nearly everybody.
A different question is intention; did Vorhaus realise there was a good
chance people in the audience would know Vaz? Did he think about what it
would mean to those when no automated knobs or moving mouse pointers were
seen? I have no answers there, I'm a bit mystified by it, especially since
White noise wasn't -to my knowledge- too big on posing for photos at all,
with or without instruments. I don't knwo enough about Tangine Dream to
comment on them.
Kas.
Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 23:48:15 BST