Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!davisonj
From: davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: hyperinstruments, VALIS, _Omni_ magazine
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.071812.28730@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 91 07:18:12 GMT
References: <9103180007.AA26001@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 90


	I have received a couple of messages asking me why I said what
I said in my previous posting:

In article <9103180007.AA26001@en.ecn.purdue.edu> davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison) writes:
>
>	During a visit to the Lake County Public Library, I walked
>by the periodicals shelf and saw the current issue of _Omni_
...
> impressed me not only for [sic] its usage of four-letter words, but
>also by the sexy lighting used in the photos of Max Mathews and Tod
...
>spewing lots of irresponsible, worthless assessments of the future of
>computer music.

	In this section of my posting I intended to express my dismay
at the usage of four-letter words in the article and the sci-fi tone
of the article (including the pictures).  While the sci-fi tone is
entirely appropriate for an article dealing with _VALIS_ (by virtue of
its subject matter), I felt that the sci-fi tone diminished the
credibility of those whose assessments of the future of computer
music were quoted.

	I originally intended to have a copy of the new _Omni_ in
front of me while writing this second posting so that I could refer
to specific portions of the article; however, since that time I
realized that my values must indeed be skewed if I were to waste any
time saying why I didn't like particular parts of the article.
Instead, I should be happy that _Omni_ has contributed toward popular
recognition of computer music.

>journalism, but some of Max Mathews' comments worried me, as they
>were pretty similar to the equally upsetting things he said at the
>80th birthday celebration of John Pierce at Northwestern University a
>few months ago.)

	That remark of mine was just plain stupid, and now that I
look at it, I am not sure how I could have let that get through my
fingers.  The only remark that even came close to "upsetting" anybody
(i.e. me) was Mathews' remark (which I loosely paraphrase...hopefully
I am within the spirit of his original remark) that 90% of a
performer's effort is spent on non-expressive (with respect to the
performer) actions, and that the Boie Radio Drum (by its nature) would
more clearly delineate the distinction between the expression of the
composer and the expression of the performer and free the performer of
much of the "busy work" that is inherent in traditional instrument
performance.  I have a gut feeling that if the Boie Radio Drum
prevails in the long term, the situation of the performer will be
largely unchanged.  Pieces for the Radio Drum in which the skills
required for the successful execution of a performance will be as
elaborately specified as the instructions in a piece employing CPN
(common practice notation) are (in my admittedly under-informed
opinion) inevitable, and the only thing that will have changed will
be the musical style in which the performer finds himself/herself.
One of the "selling points" Mathews used in his presentation of the
Radio Drum becomes irrelevant if you take Max Mathews' attribution
of the popularity of live performance to the demand of audiences
(and, I would add, some composers) for gymnastic performances (again
I am paraphrasing a remark he made at the presentation at
Northwestern).  I am not sure that he took this view seriously
himself, though, and I ashamedly admit that the line of reasoning
that I am using may be based on insufficient understanding of the
Radio Drum (and Mathews' comments).

	Dr. Richard Boulanger quizzed Mathews about potential
abuses of the hyperinstrument concept, asking much the same question
that he asked Reynolds, Yuasa, and Wuorinen in his interview with them
(_Computer_Music_Journal_ Volume 7, No. 4.) when he mentioned (in the
article) that "I bought my two-year old son an eight-dollar
keyboard...."  Dr. Boulanger was concerned with the same remarks that
caused me concern, but his "concern" may have been entirely
facetious.  Mathews' evasive reply ("I like to play with toys") was
certainly facetious, and it seemed that they were both joshing, so in
my mind the issue was really not addressed.  I had the opportunity to
ask both Mathews and Boulanger about it, but I failed to do so.

	At any rate, what I said were Mathews' "upsetting" remarks
really weren't all that upsetting at all.  And here I am accusing
_Omni_ of poor journalism...

>recoiling when I read a part of a _New_York_Times_ [I think] review
>that compared it to _Tommy_...maybe that's why I didn't buy it.

	I apologize to all the people out there whose love for _Tommy_
I do not share.  In no way did I intend to say "_VALIS_ is comparable
to _Tommy_; therefore you should not buy it," but that's how it
sounded to some.  I will be more careful with my words in the future,
and I'll try to respect the musical tastes of others.

-davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu