On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 14:00, Adrian Ward wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2004, at 1:25 pm, alex wrote:
>
> > The aims behind both statement one and statement three are to avoid
> > smoke and mirrors
>
> This is shaky ground because you seem to be using TOPLAP's manifesto to
> make a stand against the theatrical elements of a musical performance
> (by saying that smoke and mirrors are a bad thing). Actually, illusion
> is a key factor of many performances, and music and theatre are by no
> means mutually exclusive; there are elements of either in both.
I guess smoke and mirrors isn't quite the right term. I did not mean to
campaign against illusion or theatrics.
I had in mind overuse of special effects to make the dull seem
interesting, for example the altzero series by squidsoup, wild lens
flare type effects around a spinning globe of fire, obscuring the fact
that you're controlling a set of volume sliders mapped onto a poor two
dimensional control.
Your point does complicate things a great deal though - can we say that
we are opening up processes while at the same time creating illusions?
Or are the processes illusions themselves?
> I think what's more useful is to point out that musical performances
> often deploy _poor_ theatrical devices, and that TOPLAP advocates the
> use of code (in whatever form) as _another_ layer of potential
> communication in any performance.
Yes, hmm, maybe that answers my question.
alex
Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 13:15:50 BST