Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I learnt from it was that nowadays, musical recordings are > just huge chunks of data, and all you need to create them is > software and data, not real instruments which you have to play > in real time.
Recently read a pretty decent article by Hugh Gallagher from '96 (? I think) about people who do stuff like this (and Dj Spooky in particular): http://web.archive.org/web/19961128091343/http://www.wired.com/wired/2.08/features/spooky.html http://www.eciad.bc.ca/~scalvert/cc.spooky.html http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/musik/3244/1.html http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~cronin/spooky.html ``As artists, we're in an interesting position right now. There's a sense of "what's happening, what's next?" If corporations own the memories (we use to make art), then how can we work anymore?'' http://www.djspooky.com/articles.html http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~mcentury/Papers/Code.html http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/story?id=39c7dd130 > At the moment I don't make recycled music, but maybe I will > restart that as soon as there is a huge base of free music to > play with (and that uses a sane license). To recycle proprietary > music is fun, of course, too, but it propably renders the > results undistributable. I feel the same way. Nobody minds when you do it live at a club, that's actually encouraged -- but when you record and distribute the results, well ... so how do some end up doing that? John Oswald, Dj Spooky, Negativland, etc. ...
