EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 35, Issue 03 This issue's topics: database for sheet music Nitty Gritty (14 messages) Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music (6 messages) why? (3 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 08:47:23 EST From: Lois Schultz Subject: database for sheet music We would like to hear from anyone who has experience with databases that retrieve text, graphics, and music. Duke University is considering the development of a finding aid for a sheet music collection of tinpan alley songs (American popular songs). We want to make this database available through WAIS or WAIS-like interface. The data will include: - Color scanning of the covers - Indexes of titles, composers, authors, performers, graphics - Music itself (in MIDI format) We would appreciate any advice about: - Color scanners/software - it needs to handle oversize material (ca. 11" x 16") - What database software (on either PC or UNIX platforms) would serve our needs in handling text, graphics and MIDI data? - Has anyone used/heard of a database retrieving images and possibly sound along with text? Thanks very much. Please send your replies to either (or both): Lois Schultz - Music Cataloger - ljs@mail.lib.duke.edu Juraj Horacek - Programmer - juraj@iliad.lib.duke.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:47:02 EST From: Jon Crystal Subject: Nitty Gritty Wouldn't it be nice (and helpful and educational) if electronic music artists made a habit of including full liner notes with tapes/CDs detailing instruments effects and special compositional approaches? The best example of this which I have seen is Kit Watkins' "Azure": for every work he includes data on instrum ents used, patches, other devices, and how he approached the composition. In addition to great music, he has provided an invaluable aid to others' efforts to explore electronic music. If we consumers began demanding this, do you think other artists would follow suit? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 14:47:02 EST From: Jon Crystal Subject: Nitty Gritty Wouldn't it be nice (and helpful and educational) if electronic music artists made a habit of including full liner notes with tapes/CDs detailing instruments effects and special compositional approaches? The best example of this which I have seen is Kit Watkins' "Azure": for every work he includes data on instrum ents used, patches, other devices, and how he approached the composition. In addition to great music, he has provided an invaluable aid to others' efforts to explore electronic music. If we consumers began demanding this, do you think other artists would follow suit? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 15:48:55 PST From: Malcolm Humes Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty >Wouldn't it be nice (and helpful and educational) if electronic music artists >made a habit of including full liner notes with tapes/CDs detailing instruments >effects and special compositional approaches? I'd think that some artists would actually prefer not to do so. I guess it depends on a lot of factors... if you've developed a unique system maybe you wouldn't want to share it. On the other hand, sometimes the technique used can be as interesting or sometimes even more interesting than listening to the final product. I've heard Eno talk a bit about systems, and he made some interesting points about the system not being as important as what material one chooses to put into it... I think one example of this he used was a Steve Reich piece using tape loops (It's Gonna Rain?). Eno noted that if the source material fed into the loop system was a synth or drone it would be pretty boring, but his choice of human speech gave the piece more depth. I'm not saying artists shouldn't put detailed info on their works, just that I think not all would want to. And trying to pressure them to disclose this info strikes me as something like asking an artist in a gallery what his painting is supposed to mean. Some things are better left to the interpretation of the receiver, and in some ways I enjoy listening to something and trying to figure out how they did that. But often once I know how to do something it starts to sound like a cliche to me; like an over-used phrase... - malcolm@wrs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 21:48:09 -0500 From: "Christian B. Hall" Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty possibly just including the instruments used would be nice. i agree with malcolm, but have been thinking to myself re: this issue for some time now. i often wonder which, if any, companies musicians value the most (i, for example, am a roland fan) or what they think in the way of hiring real musicians for concerts (dead can dance used to (still?) do that). --Christian -- ...watching and waiting for the Dao ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian B. Hall Phone: (919) 759-6278 Internet: hallcb@wfunet.wfu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 11:07:58 CST From: Gregory Taylor Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty Asking about technique is one of those Shibboleth questions: For those who take the Romantic tack that music is inspiration, the details will more or less wind up being the stuff that distracts from genius or mounts an attack against the "intellectual property" of the genius that thought the patch up. For the formalist, it *is* the piece, if understood in its proper form. I'm not sure that education is really what produces the attitude about sharing information, since both viewpoints [and the myriad of viewpoints I've not mentioned] have their own views of the value of "shared" information and "education." There are a number of aesthetic positions from which asking about technique *is* roughly equivalent to asking "what it means." Personally, I think that genius *and* technique are pretty much irrelevant in terms of having any kind of hierarchy. They're just pieces of information like any other which get tagged with the artifact as it whizzes past. One is free to pay attention or not. Seems to me that we ought to be whining a lot more about the question of authorship and the efficacy of meaning when we're essentially consuming someone else's algorithms [that is, the person who designs and markets the technology sets the agenda for it, to borrow from my wife's critical position] and boxes, and surrounded by a marketing and distribution apparatus which is quite interested in getting us to believe that *their* tools are the "keys" to our "self expression," [Fade some random sample of tinkertoy synth music or another csound bit of academic computer music, as your fancy wills], and that the success of said marketing is largely dependent on our having bought the argument about our own "uniqueness" in the first place. >I didn't mean to impinge on the intellectual rights of artists...I guess >it is my educator's world view which sees the value in sharing technique >and approach with others. No offense taken. I sometimes wish that the average post-Romantic was as quick to be upfront about their assumptions about intellectual "rights" once in a while. Besides, if you don't locate "meaning" of something solely in the "intent" of the creator, why is "technique" such a threatening notion? The hermeneutic of "reading" a patch is just as dicey as the artist's "intent." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 08:17:00 EDT From: RAY BROHINSKY Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty >...technique used can be...more interesting than listening to the >final product... Isn't there somthing wrong with that? I guess I prefer the music side of electronic music to be something that can be called music. I'm not of the bleep-glip school by any means (as my focus on intonations and predilection towards renaissance music might indicate). If the finished product is not as interesting as the way it was produced, what is it, then? I don't see the average violinist spending hours in physics labs trying to quantify and qualify the perfect bow stroke. Nor have I seen an influx of technology being applied to brass and reeds (in the case of some makers, I've even seen a refusal to use easy, accurate proceedures, because `it wasn't cost effective'.) And I don't remember Schubert publishing his scratchpads. (Mozart doesn't count, since he did all his scratching internally or in public, depending on what type!) So why are electronic musicians putting out stuff that qualifies under the quoted statement above? (I agree with the statement, by the way, just not with the philosophy that it should be that way.) If a technique is more interesting to read about or to research than it is to here, it strikes me that that technique belongs somewhere other than in a piece of music. Likewise, if everything written about a piece is better than the piece itself, something should wave a flag. I just can't figgure out whose responsibility it is to see the flag and act on it. The composer (who may be entirely too close to the technique and his output to tell!) or the consumers (who are generally considered unwashed by a lot of their suppliers) or the critics, or who? Or is this just a tangent that has nothng to do with music, electronics, techniques that don't sound as good as descriptions of them... raybro ::still shaking his head:: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:42:40 CST From: michael whitten Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty Well......I just saw Steve Reich's piece Different Trains performed a couple of weeks ago, and, yes, knowing how it was made WAS interesting and amusing, and it even added something to the meaning. IMHO, it added baggage. Train baggage, I guess. Speaking of which, I must relate more amusement courtesy Mr Reich. I just had to laugh when he recounted the 'struggle' to leap beyond the sustain envelope inherent in the marimba. His solution was to use a bow. My solution: disclaim the problem; use another instrument. This was silly artist suffering. Flame now. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 09:33:06 LCL From: michael whitten Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty Jon Crystal wrote: >Wouldn't it be nice (and helpful and educational) if electronic music artists >made a habit of including full liner notes with tapes/CDs detailing instrument >effects and special compositional approaches? The best example of this which >Ihave seen is Kit Watkins' "Azure": for every work he includes data on instru >ents used, patches, other devices, and how he approached the composition. In >addition to great music, he has provided an invaluable aid to others' efforts > to explore electronic music. If we consumers began demanding this, do you > think other artists would follow suit? I guess if one considers oneself an artist/educator, this is a good thing to to do. Questions that must arise, though: Are you expecting/intending an audience of techie-types to whom this kind of information might have meaning? Or is, perhaps, method integral to the madness, somehow? Myself.....well, 'nobody's damn business' sums that up, I guess. Or..... What possible bearing could my hardware have on the mighty aesthetic that is MY music? ;-) Seriously, though, I think I'd be pretty bummed if I knew people were interested in my work because of my bag o' tricks. Air's pretty thin up here in my ivory tower. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 10:05:14 EST From: Jon Crystal Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty Malcolm: I didn't mean to impinge on the intellectual rights of artists...I guess it is my educator's world view which sees the value in sharing technique and approach with others. And while I wouldn't tend to ask a painter "What it means ..." there are many painters who would be very pleased to respond to questions about technique of producing their art.... Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 10:25:52 PST From: Malcolm Humes Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty >>...technique used can be...more interesting than listening to the >>final product... >Isn't there somthing wrong with that? That was sort of what I was suggesting... I think that it can be a problem, where sometimes people get more caught up in how something is made than in the quality or content of the final product. >So why are electronic musicians putting out stuff that qualifies under >the quoted statement above? (I agree with the statement, by the way, just >not with the philosophy that it should be that way.) Well, I think part of it is that the process of making something tends to remove one's ability to be objective since you're so subjectively and intimately involved in what you're doing that it sometimes is hard to step back and hear it from a final listener's perspective. And I don't think it's an intentional philosophy. If someone has this fantastic idea as a concept it might really be a fantastic idea, but it may not translate into the end product. Also it's worth noting that what bores one person may thrill another. Why does anybody make bad art? Like Ray said, who is qualified to decide what is interesting? The artist? The distributer? or the consumer? I'd say all of them. That's why we have such a variety of music, it's just sometimes hard wading through all the fat to get to the meat. I'd say even if everyone else thinks a piece of music sucks but the artist wants to release it, that's their option. >Or is this just a tangent that has nothng to do with music, electronics, >techniques that don't sound as good as descriptions of them... Well, I don't think it's off base since this is a forum for people who create and compose and listen to music. I was just trying to speak in more general terms because I've found that many creative concepts can be abstracted to a generalization of how we compose and construct, and thus there's actually a lot of parallels between how someone creates with paint or words or other mediums. Say we were talking about a guy who paints only with hairs from his beard... the thing is that from the point of view of just looking at an end product the system that created it is largely irrelevant, but sometimes knowing how they arrived at that end can be interesting, amusing, or perhaps even offer new meaning to a piece. Howsabout Steve Reich's Different Trains, which uses snippets of voices from interviews with people talking about trains, and Reich composed music based on the vocal phrasings of the quotes used. Maybe not the best example possible, but supposing you just heard this piece and had no idea what it was about. You might be able to guess at what's going on, but reading the liner notes that talk about the concept might add some new meaning or understand to your interpretation of the piece. - malcolm@wrs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 10:26:36 -0600 From: Randy Jones Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty > Wouldn't it be nice (and helpful and educational) if electronic music artists > made a habit of including full liner notes with tapes/CDs detailing instruments > effects and special compositional approaches? The best example of this which > I have seen is Kit Watkins' "Azure": for every work he includes data on instrum > ents used, patches, other devices, and how he approached the composition. In > addition to great music, he has provided an invaluable aid to others' efforts > to explore electronic music. If we consumers began demanding this, do you > think other artists would follow suit? If we began demanding this, we'd be jerks. I think that leaving the process of creation partially or totally hidden is almost always a better aid to the creative efforts of the listener. It engourages research and attentive listening, rather than running-out-to- the-store-and-new-toys-buying. (I forgot the German word for this.) And, speaking as a composer, I find that mystery (as opposed to mystification) is often an essential component of my work. -randy jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 13:48:00 EDT From: WSCOTT@WOOSTER.BITNET Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty Gee, the technical side CAN often be more interesting than the composition. There are a lot of musicians with a great sound but mediocre chops. When I hear it I want to know where the sound came from, but I don't particularly want to listen to the piece again. When both the sound and the piece are great, then I REALLY want to know where the sound came from. In my opinion, good technical notes can only be a plus. Bill Scott WSCOTT@WOOSTER.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 11:12:09 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty >Gee, the technical side CAN often be more interesting than the composition. Doesn't say much for the composition. >There are a lot of musicians with a great sound but mediocre chops. When >I hear it I want to know where the sound came from, but I don't particularly >want to listen to the piece again. When both the sound and the piece are >great, then I REALLY want to know where the sound came from. In my opinion, >good technical notes can only be a plus. Disagree. Totally. For a start, if you're serious about the medium of electronic music then you'll *know* what's being used anyway in a lot of cases; anybody with half an ounce of knowledge about emusic knows that Tangerine Dream's EXIT, LOGOS and WHITE EAGLE are PPG-based, and recognise the TX816 material on Firestarter and the Emulator work on Legend. Why demystify the art by taking it apart with toothpicks? Then again, the appeal of a number of albums is that I have no idea how the stuff is done, and I don't want to. If I want that kind of sound, then I should be expected to damn well listen closely and work out how to get a similar, or more customised/personal, effect using my gear and putting in the effort. (Example: Gabriel's BIRDY. There's some fantastic sound treatments there, and I'm starting to figure out how to do similar things myself, using radically different equipment.) And on my musical projects I'm not going to tell everyone how I do things. It's my art, dammit, and I'm not going to dismantle it for you; figure out what I'm doing for yourselves - if you can. Besides, it's quite rewarding to potter around with a PPG and Lexicon for a while and then come up with an effect used on a Klaus Schulze album eight years ago and suddenly realise, "Goddam, *that's* how he got that effect!" Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 11:12:23 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Nitty Gritty >there are many painters who would be very pleased to respond to questions >about technique of producing their art.... Oh, responding to questions is one thing. Printing all the technical details of pigments, pallette mixing and brush technique on the back of each canvas is something else. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 11:26:00 EDT From: WSCOTT@WOOSTER.BITNET Subject: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music Nick writes: >For a start, if you're serious about the medium of electronic music then >you'll *know* what's being used anyway in a lot of cases; anybody with half >an ounce of knowledge about emusic knows that Tangerine Dream's EXIT, LOGOS >and WHITE EAGLE are PPG-based, and recognise the TX816 material on... Technical notes aren't necessarily for ignoramuses who can't figure out what they're listening to. Have you ever seen photographic albums that carry all the specifications--f stop, filter, ASA/ISO push, emulsion, etc.? These are not meant for the brownie crowd. >Why demystify the art... One reason for demystifying art is to ensure its support within the culture. Without educating others in your techniques, the art will likely be disregarded by future generations. A second reason is an ethical one. Current electronic instruments have the capacity to emit sound created by others (samplers and sample playing synths especially, but factory presets count here). No matter how much the "designated artist" has tweaked them into something different, he or she has the responsibility to cite his or her sources. >And on my musical projects I'm not going to tell everyone how I do things. >It's my art, dammit, and I'm not going to dismantle it for you; figure out >what I'm doing for yourselves - if you can. Maybe it's all yours if you're bowing some marimbas or getting a great "chopper" sound from your wavestation by waving it around your head on a rope, but if you've plugged it into the wall and are triggering it with MIDI, then you owe a great deal to a lot of other artists--Alex Limberis on the wavestation, for example. It's pretty difficult to create good electronic music totally from scratch, and inconceivable on an instrument like the wavestation (or PPG). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 14:25:02 MST From: Adam Schabtach Subject: Re: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music > Maybe it's all yours if you're bowing some marimbas or getting a great > "chopper" sound from your wavestation by waving it around your head on > a rope, but if you've plugged it into the wall and are triggering it > with MIDI, then you owe a great deal to a lot of other artists--Alex Limberis > on the wavestation, for example. I don't understand this at all. If I decide to pick up the cello, do I suddenly owe something to Yo Yo Ma? If I use a piano in one of my tunes, am I suddenly indebted to Scott Joplin? Why? And if not, why is it different for the WS? If I owe anything to anybody for using an instrument, I might owe something to the engineers who built it. But I don't see why I owe anything to anybody that I might have a piece of gear in common with. > It's pretty difficult to create good > electronic music totally from scratch, and inconceivable on an instrument > like the wavestation (or PPG). Well, "good" is a pretty subjective term, but that aside, I don't understand this statement either. Are you saying that any music produced with the WS or the PPG will not be good? Or that these instruments are inconceivably complex? Funny, I thought that Tangerine Dream did a pretty good job with the PPG... --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 08:26:26 EST From: "Patrick Robinson" Subject: Re: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music On Thu, 12 Dec 1991 11:26:00 EDT said: >It's pretty difficult to create good >electronic music totally from scratch, and inconceivable on an instrument >like the wavestation (or PPG). Is it just me, or does this sound like someone is just really bored with this mailing list, and wants to kick up a fracas...? -Patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:58:45 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music >>Why demystify the art... > >One reason for demystifying art is to ensure its support within the >culture. Without educating others in your techniques, the art will >likely be disregarded by future generations. I have nothing against talking to other artists, collaborating with other people to try out new techniques and ideas (Team Metlay anyone?), learning from other people, and generally sharing my art. What I don't like is the assumption that I as somehow *obligated* to label my music with technical details for everyone to read without making any efforts for themselves. >No matter how much the >"designated artist" has tweaked them into something different, he or >she has the responsibility to cite his or her sources. I dispute this. And besides, all of my Wavestation and Waldorf patches are created from scratch. I'm happy, though, to give Wolfgang Palm, Dave Smith and Alan Kay credits in any albums for creating the hardware in the first place. Ditto for the software.. >but if you've plugged it into the wall and are triggering it >with MIDI, then you owe a great deal to a lot of other artists--Alex Limberis >on the wavestation, for example. Er, pardon my french, but who the f*ck is Alex Limberis and what on earth do I own him? >It's pretty difficult to create good >electronic music totally from scratch, and inconceivable on an instrument >like the wavestation (or PPG). Why? I thought I was getting along quite nicely... (I don't know that I'd call it "good", but I'm programming the WS and Waldorf from scratch, and at least I'm having a good time...) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 10:39:00 EDT From: RAY BROHINSKY Subject: Re: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music >One reason for demystifying art is to ensure its support within the >culture. Without educating others in your techniques, the art will >likely be disregarded by future generations. This argument is historically bankrupt from an artistic point of view. Mozart explained his technique with (paraphrase) `I just put the notes where they want to be, no more, no less.' If this is an explanation of his art, and a valid one (and I believe it is, actually) then that's as much liner notes as you need. Mozart owed his art and craft to many influences, but also to himself. The craft part was developed, both by hearing from the womb, the sounds of music in a musical household, and intensive instruction on the part of his father, in the forms and harmonies that existed to Mozart's time. Mozart's art was wholly from within himself. The idea that anyone would want to emulate his techniques (lots of snooker and alcohol, party a lot, insult your father, but in subtle ways, die young, always write in ink...) is downright silly. If you're talking art, Nick is absolutely right, and no hints about where a sound came from is necessary. If you're talking technique, that's a different story. Maybe that deserves explanation to the next generation, but explanations of techniques bore the populace who pay for a musician's meagre existance. Those musicians who cater to that populace don't starve as much. Some have even done well for themselves. It hasn't been from telling everyone in the country how to moon-walk in 2 easy lessons, either! Bach had technique all over the place, and artistry to boot. The artistry was there even in his hacks: cantatas that had to be churned out on a weekly basis, keyboard exercises, improvisations during dinner, that sort of stuff. He didn't take his art off like a coat. He didn't write an explanation on each piece of music paper of what techniques he used to compose that piece. The hearer had to discern it. For Bach to try to teach everyone who heard his music how it was done would have been foolishness: your public don't want to know. So maybe you should write to some of these artists and ask them what techniques they used, and you can be their student. Maybe not. Maybe they won't remember. But there is no art in explanations of techniques. Art is in doing, and it doesn't often come off record jackets. raybro ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 11:25:41 EST From: Jon Crystal Subject: Re: Providing technical info to those who will listen to your music It amazes me how this aesthetic discussion has expanded. My original, simple request was for musicians to share what they would about technique (which inclu des both materials and inspiration).Raybro's polemic seems to ignore the fact that Bach, Mozart and many others had students, to whom they no doubt imparted helpful advice. What's the big deal? What's to hide? Isn't E-Music all about sharing ideas? For myself, I've just put this into practice. At the suggestion of a recent posting to this list I ordered CD& tape from George Wallace (very good BTW) and included invitation to him to tell me how he does his music. I received a nice, handwritten 4 page letter telling me about equipment and what he was trying to achieve on various cuts. This is a great starting point for exchange, and what I was looking for. I certainly didn't expect my suggestion to start such a philosophical debate, although the various contributions have also challenged by thinking about some of these issues. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 15:49:03 PDT From: James Hedberg Subject: why? Forwarded message: >From hedberg Thu Dec 26 15:47:53 1991 Subject: why? To: allmusic@auvm.american.edu (Music Discussion) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 15:47:53 PDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10] I'll answer any questions at all on how I performed the parts, what effects I used, what picks, what strings, whatever. But to me, that doesn't seem as important as the real gist behind it, which is why the stuff was made and where it really came from. And I can't really take credit for it, because I think we create the beautiful things we do using our intuition, which comes from inside. I think we all have the same ability to do these things. How much we let that flame inside become part of our product determines what type of person we are. -Steve Vai -- -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1991 10:11:26 EST From: HARNDEN@AUVM.BITNET Subject: Re: why? vai's statement is, i think, exemplary. an artist who indeed has confidence in and passion for his/her art need not be afraid of exposure. i'm still chewing on this whole debate. i agree with a lot of nick's sensibilities, and not a lot with his conclusions. i'm a cook. for me, the magic and pleasure are in the act, and in the results. i enjoy cooking. i enjoy watching people enjoy my cooking. i also enjoy sharing recipes. i'm a teacher. it is my job, and my pleasure, to discover sounds and ideas with my students. sharing is essential to the process. i try to engage my students in dialogue, not simply lecture at them. whenever i have a thought, i present it. and i listen to theirs. i'm an artist. i like to play... with sound, image, texture. i'm also a knowledgable audience. i analyze what i am exposed to, constantly. for me, this enriches my experience, both as an artist and as an audience. i am not a one-dimensional creature. understanding the details of execution of a work does not in way diminish my appreciation of it as a whole. i can detach, and enjoy. but i can also approach critically, and appreciate nuance. i think i can expect a similar approach from those that i present my work to. i appreciate joy, and critical interest. making explicit what is meant, at times, or describing the means, makes my statements no less personal to me. -------------------< Cognitive Dissonance is an Art Form >--------------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. Washington, D.C -----------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >----------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1991 12:44:26 GMT From: nick@DCS.EDINBURGH.AC.UK Subject: why? vai's statement is, i think, exemplary. an artist who indeed has confidence in and passion for his/her art need not be afraid of exposure. i'm still chewing on this whole debate. i agree with a lot of nick's sensibilities, and not a lot with his conclusions. Perhaps I didn't express myself very well. (Or perhaps I did and Eric still disagrees - it's possible :-)) I have nothing against "sharing my art." other artists in the past, and will do so again in future. We've shared pieces of music, sounds, programming tips and the like, and worked on each other's material. And I've been chatting about programming techniques on this list and others. What I object to is the tone (as I remember it) of the original article, viz. that artists owe it to their public to explain their techniques and should be required to decorate album sleeves and the like with technical info. for each one of the buying audience to have passive access to. That's a different thing, and I don't really see why I should do so in principle. Nick. ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************