colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") (11/07/86)
In article <861027-093832-2927@Xerox>, Ghenis.pasa@XEROX.COM writes: > > Why do we record music instead of teaching everyone how to sing? To > preserve what we consider top performance and make it easily available > for others to enjoy, even if the performer himself cannot be present and > others are not inclined to or capable of duplicating his work, but > simply wish to benefit from it. While I appreciate the point, it raises more questions.... 1. Why do we preserve top "performance?" The process of recording music redefines it as something perfectly repeatable--an effect that began with the invention of musical notation; jazz, and afterwards composers like Cage, tried to overturn this definition. But "performance" is also a social phenomenon, as it distinguishes between producers and consumers. The consequence of specialization is to retard progress by leaving the production of music to relatively few people. 2. Has not recorded music become a separate medium in its own right? Even a "faithful" recording involves a lot of electronic klugery. Most popular recordings no longer sound like, or can be performed as, live music. The second point has implications for A.I.! If you had a robot slave, how would you treat it? What would you become?