Reading Response #4
! The bit of history about Ada Lovelace was very interesting, especially
being a fellow woman in this field. It’s really inspiring to know about the early
female pioneers of the computer science/computer music world. Also, I love this
wonderful recurrent theme of people (like Chowning) combining their interests in
art and science to formulate the most impactful innovations. I worry that modern
society reinforces boundaries which separate art from STEM, divorcing the
dreamers from the mathematical schemers. The intersection of these energies is
a big part of why I was interested in studying at CCRMA. "
! The section on live coding (pg. 199) has me reflecting on a performance I
attended two years ago, where I encountered my first live coding DJ. The notion
itself got me very excited, but the set I saw was disappointing from a musical
perspective. This might have just been the specific performer, but I noticed how
“mistakes” sounded more like technical difficulties. It felt different from an
experienced musician on an acoustic instrument – who can often synthesize
errors into great moments. Some of my favorite musical experiences have been
the result of an unintended note or timing choice. How can players make a
computer crash musical? I think this introduces a very interesting question for
designing a digital creativity ecosystem. Can we craft a world with infinite
parameters which maintain some ability to “glitch” into *musically fortuitous*
disasters?"
! Principle 4.8 really resonates with me. This speaks about experimentation
by taking things to illogical extremes, which I actually talked about in my reading
response #3, calling them, “comical maximums.” I think this particular principle
encapsulates my fascination with digital signal processing. I love composing in a
DAW because the ceiling feels nonexistent. That being said, the digital world
demands a constant balance between the benefits of endless control and
drawbacks of getting lost in possibilities. This is referenced in Principle 4.10
which says, “Just because something is programmable doesn’t make it
interesting.” Just because my CPU can handle 10 Soundtoys “decapitator”
plugins on one channel strip doesn’t make it the right choice. (Though it’s a
compositional decision I can’t help but make on several occasions!)!"
! A lot of my favorite music uses vocal sampling or found sounds. I’ve
always been drawn to this style of rendering novel sonic textures. The piece
Bizness by tUnE-yArDs had a monumental impact on my music-making. It was
very interesting to hear Paul Lansky’s groundbreaking version of this songwriting
technique. I was especially intrigued with Lansky’s concept that each play-
through of the digital program is a different “performance” of the piece because
of the randomness written into his software. In the modern age of DJs
“performing” by lazily pressing one button for playback, this seems like an
underutilized compositional trick. A fascinating way for songwriters to compel a
singular unique moment out of each playback performance.
