> glad the provocation went through.
You also used that word when posting an unrelated url on LinkedIn today.
Seems to be a mood that you are in.
sorry Mathieu, don't know what you are talking about. I even checked my Linkedin and there's no "provocation" in there.
You might be confused with someone else.
> Thus, I was just wondering that I would have appreciated TED to show
> some of them instead of this with cables everywhere and boxes hanging
> around.
I wish people to stop portraying the use of visible cables-and-boxes as if
it were some kind of unprofessionalism.
It's not about having cables or not, it's about claiming to have discovered the "future".
quote from his video read "we MAKE the future".
It is simply wrong to state something like that on a TED video with such performance.
> What's a ??technological parody????
> I mean when "hi-profile" tech is used to implement an approach or a
> concept that doesn't really require such amount of technology.
Well, for producing the sound that you are producing, you don't need the
equipment that you are using. For example you could pre-record it all by
playing on a totally different-looking device. How many people would
notice??
Mathieu, the comparison here is not useful. That's why I did not mention my work.
We are talking about very different studies.
But since you mentioned it, my equipment is:
1_ composed of one mic, one circuit and a common soundcard. Not the same amount of devices used in the TED video.
2_ the sound produced is quite idiosyncratic and the only sound source is coming from a sound matter specific to my body.
you can probably synthesised similar sounds, but with the system you can produce a sound in few seconds, you don't need synthesis.
3_ I couldn't even play the pre-recorded sounds of the same gestures, 'cause gestures are different every time I perform.
And therefore people will really notice.
That's in the design.
I'm not saying it's better, maybe it's a silly approach, but it's surely different.
> there are many nuances, but I mentioned that as the text in Onyx's video
> read: "so that beatjazzers become as common as djs."? Do you really need
> cables everywhere, sensors, a mouthpiece with two guitar pickups, a
> smartphone stick to your forearm, etc.. to achieve such goal?
Does he really need to stick to only the stated goal?? It's not an
academic presentation for the sole goal of proving a point about the
discourse of art.
Do you usually write statements that you don't want to stick to?
> Hans, Onyx is playing mostly loops isn't he? How you know about the
> timing? We don't even know how much of what he's doing is really live,
> what is he triggering, if timing is controlled by a timeline or by his
> performance.
Right. When every performance is potentially centred on a new, never-seen
instrument, who in the audience is actually competent to figure out which
elements are live and which ones are not??
How can I know?
that's why we are discussing here.
And this point seem to being raised from other people on the list.
It's quite a classical and still true issue with electronic music performance.
And the future might be coming along when we will find a proper solution.
> Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But I saw a lot of loops playing on a
> timeline and some solos parts possibly produced through the mouthpiece.
Aren't we so unsure??
You use too many negatives, made me confused :)