RE: looping as sin

["Michael P. Hughes, Ph.D." <pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk>]

>> >  guess I'm
>> >bugged when I feel that people are abdicating their musical flexibilty
>> >or decision-making to whatever tool it is that they use.

>> I always find it remarkable when people perceive the newer, electronic
>> devices as "technology" in preference to older things. I think the 
>piano is
>> one of the most stunning technological accomplishments humans have ever
>> made. The amount of knowledge and invention that had to happen before 
>the
>> modern piano could exist is simply amazing. That to me is one of the 
>finest
>> examples of technology I can think of. Just because it's been basically
>> finished for a hundred years doesn't lessen the technical 
>accomplishment.

>Sometimes I think of how revolutionary equal temperament was.  And yet, in
>the bigger picture, it too is a constraint.  Sometimes I like to microtune
>my synths as a way of choosing a different constraint.

I often find it amazing that using a single tonality is insufficient for us
these days.  The "one-sound" violin has been sufficient for about 4
centuries of music; at no point did anyone say "right, we've exhausted all
we can do with that, bin it".  The breadth of new music is countless idioms
composed for this simple instrument is huge.  And yet nowadays, if our
processor can't perform infinite combinations of voices that we can switch
between, we're not interested.  I'm not against processing - obviously, or
I'd not be here - but I do worry that our "ambient drone-guitar noodlings"
are little more than attempts to attract attention through novelty of tone,
rather than musical merit. After all, how many of us have actually sat down
and _composed_ looping pieces, rather than just noodling?

Michael