Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu said at "Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?."r[2003/04/17 11:01]
Hello.
This issue should be split in two part.
I am not sure about this. The more I think about it, the more I think that the "performative" and the "controling" are aspects of the same thing. But for discussion it is useful to choose one perspective.
With electronics you can even completely change your gesture between two performances (even if it's not necessarily a good thing for the quality of the performance!).
Yes, you can redesign your interface, you could even make te computer decide what kind of interface there will be. In the last case the performance is a search. That can be very good, depending on who does the searching. It requires meta-skills in a certain way, a different kind of virtuosity. You lose fine control on the event level, I believe. But that is just one of may choices you have to make.
- little elaboration of their playing/improvising technique. Here I
have a positive example in my teacher. I mean that using his limited devices he developed a very good which I currently still lack.
Limitations are necessary. You can either decide te limitations in the shop, or you have to program them in. I would call it focused though. I think musical instruments are focused. Besides it takes practice. How many hours does it take to play thumb positions in tune on the double bass? Why should a computer take less time, especially considering that your designing the instrument and developing the methodology as well.
I'm working on my MetaControl.
What are the concepts behind this?
Gerard