[music-dsp] a little about myself
Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie
Wed Feb 29 05:22:24 EST 2012
Also, as in traditional music disciplines, intuitive (and partial) understanding of principles can also be enough to make music, and I expect this to be the same here. This is, again, generally independent of whether we find this music good or bad.
On 29 Feb 2012, at 08:46, Victor wrote:
> In my opinion, the process here is as important as in traditional music disciplines. So I think having a good knowledge of craft is essential for a composer. In the traditinal world, this meant mastering counterpoint and harmony, tonal and post-tonal, as well as being able to think new ways of structuring the material, etc. Here, I think we have an emerging set of crafts, maybe not yet completely defined, but things like synthesis and programming might well be part of it.
> In the end, no one might be able to determine whether your music is worth anything, but having a
> good craft at least it will guarantee a certain level of structural quality (if you believe there is such a thing). In some quarters, it will be said to be professionally done. These are the things that can be taught and learned.
> However, as in traditional music, there is also something beyond the craft, which is hard to define.
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 00:41, Richard Dobson <richarddobson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2012 16:03, Bill Schottstaedt wrote:
>>> I don't think this conversation is useful. The only question I'd
>>> ask is "did this person make good music?", and I don't care at all about
>>> his degrees or grants. One of the best mathematicians I've known
>>> does not even have a high-school diploma. If I find such a person,
>>> then it's interesting to ask how she did it. But there are very few,
>>> and no generalizations seem to come to mind.
>> I agree, but I think such conversations can be useful. "Computer Music" does possibly suffer more than most from what I might mischievously call the "expertise problem" - how does the "typical" listener recognise all the skills that have been brought to bear in a piece? They presumably have to do that at least to some extent, to decide if the piece is "good". The temptation I see is to focus more on the process than the product - understandable enough for a composer, but not necessarily practical for the listener. Ross, for example, stipulated that a "computer musician" not only needs to be a programmer, but also have undergraduate level EE expertise. The process is clearly paramount. I do wonder how that would be unambiguously apparent listening to a piece.
>> On the CEC mailing list, the proposal was made (Kevin Austin IIRC) that in what was called "High Acousmatic Art" (HAA) the piece will always involve the process of transformation. That may well be widely true, but as a matter of principle I would be disappointed if that was the only possible criterion of "goodness" of a piece for it to qualify as HAA (assuming of course HAA can itself be adequately defined). I am really interested in what other paradigms of the compositional process could also qualify for a HAA piece.
>> Richard Dobson
>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links
> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links
Dr Victor Lazzarini
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
More information about the music-dsp