[Dixielandjazz] Electronic Enhancment

[Stan Brager]

For once, at least, I have to agree with Steve. Consider this, when we
listen to recorded sound be it on radio, TV, movies, LP, or CD it is not
"live" sound.

Do we enjoy the music knowing that it doesn't sound like it did in the
studio? Of course.

When we to go to a live venue and hear a band does it really make any
difference if the clarinetist is playing in an electronic environment? Of
course not!

What's truly important is that, at some point in the process, there is a
LIVE musician making the music!

1) He's deciding which notes to play, how loud or soft, when to play the
note and how much time should the note last.
2) He's got to physically do what it takes to properly play that note with
his instrument.
3) He's got to coordinate his playing with the rest of the group.
4) He's taking risks because he may hit a clam or people will not enjoy how
he plays.

This and more must happen in real time. And he has no chance to correct his
mistake (unless he's making a studio recording).

Bear in mind that all the above and often more is the case for women
musicians.

Stan
Stan Brager
Trombonist-in-Training
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Barbone" <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
To: <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:07 AM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Electronic Enhancment


> > Andy.Ling at Quantel.Com (wrote)
>
> > about Barbone's idea of an electronically created clarinet sound, or
band.
> >
> > So what exactly is wrong with this? You are using a set of tools to
> > apply your artistic skills and ideas to create some masterpiece.
> > Just because you cannot achieve your desired result using a
> > "real" clarinet doesn't make your artistic interpretation any
> > less valid.
>
> Nothing is wrong with it. It is just not live music that's all. It is
unquestionably "music" and it is unquestionably "art". As you say, a valid
artistic interpretation.
>
> > People have been using the latest technology to create art for
> > years.
>
> A great point with which I completely agree
>
> > I suspect part of the reason you dismiss this as a daft idea is
> > that you cannot actually do it yet and so your live performance
> > will still sound better than anything synthesised. Give it a few
> > more years though and this might not be true.
>
> I do not dismiss it as a daft idea. Only dismiss it if we call it "live"
music. I am sure that instrument sound can already be synthesized pretty
darn well. Not by me, but certainly by those who do it. It's the hologram
part that has to be worked out.
>
> However, anyone who has seen Magician's make Elephant's disappear, or
David Copperfield walk through a solid wall knows that the days of the
Fantasy Five + Two, "live in hologram", at Wembly Stadium are not really
that far away.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
>
>
>
>