Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: a polemic
From: David Gerard Matthews (dgm4+@pitt.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 05:29:44 EET
Sorry, forgot to add:
Pascal Haakmat wrote:
>Modern technology (and software in particular) allows us to design
>incredibly flexible instruments without needing to commit to any
>particular musical tradition at all. That doesn't mean that doing so
>is also always a good idea.
>
I know what you're saying, it's basically the argument against cultural
appropriation,
and that any aesthetic not grounded in some tradition is basically
superficial. I'm not
unsympathetic to that position in general. But this is not really the
forum to debate
aesthetics. Let's not forget that ideas from one domain tend to carry
over to others.
When Paul D. talks about non-integral rhythmic structures, he mentions
Indian music.
However, these sorts of rhythms have been popping up in western music
over the last
100 years as well, sometimes, though not always under non-western
influence. (I'm
pretty sure Brian Ferneyhough doesn't care about Indian rhythms, but he
certainly
uses non-integral bar lengths, including things like 7/10 (1) [= 1.3
quarter note bar]).
That's a little off-topic, but the point is that a well-written piece of
code should be
adaptable to as many different contexts as possible, and should support
as many users
as possible. I've searched for years for commercial apps that don't
restrict my rhythmic
and harmonic thinkning, and they basically don't exist.
>
>After all, is it preferable to have a piece of wood with the potential
>to become any kind of instrument, or a guitar?
>
Hmm. Last time I checked, the guitar was used in just about every
musical tradition
from rock to western classical to Afro-pop to jazz to folk to Hawaiian
to chansons
to Flamenco to country.....
-dgm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Dec 17 2002 - 05:30:32 EET