Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Bach midi
Found this video. It is a very nice thing to do with midi tracks. Maybe it's calling for my attention to think about it and work out something with my midi!
Doubts
Along the way for the composition of the sound piece, the most present doubt is somehow Shakespearean: "To add other sounds and software instruments to the piece or not to add other sounds and software instruments to the piece that is the question!"
This question resides within a problematic that was put by Dave Beech in the first tutorial I had with him as I was presenting my previous work to him. This was raised after I shown him the video BLIP (2004). The interrogation was "do you consider this to be an artwork or do you place it in another sphere?".
This then implicitly raises other questions very important in the definition of my artwork, such as where are the boundaries of art and every other planes?, what is considered art?, what makes a work of art be a work of art and not any other kind of work? and for the present case what makes a sound piece be a work of art and not a song? what makes a song not be a work of art? what are the "forbidden" elements in a song that make it go out of the art realm? and as a present and common questions hovering over all these matters who decides all this, who gave him that power and what is the legitimacy of that power?
The thought of this comes to me as a very simple thing:
I can do the sound piece simply by solely using the sounds of the people I recorded in response to my video (Dance). Though in my opinion, the sound is not going to be that great in two senses:
1st - as a sound piece by it self, it can be funny, interesting and all into the realm of the translation that I am working with. However soundwise it is not going to be a great piece just because there are sound frequencies missing, kinds of sound matters related to things such as the attack, the decay, the sustain and the release of the sounds, the constant noise due to recording and so on.
2nd - this piece is not only about a whole work related to translation and recursion of thought in physical different media, but specifically about a specific culture: clubbing, dancing, electronic music and production of work all in present days. For this, the soundtrack being created turns against itself if made just with those sounds. It gets decontextualized. And turns the piece into another thing that it's not. It's not simply because it's not the reflection I want to put upon the piece.
On the other hand, trying to meet with Dave Beech's thoughts, the sound piece being made just with those recordings might meet more the (un)conventional artwork parameters.
After all this thought given (and more that I am not writing here...) I will probably make the two versions...
This question resides within a problematic that was put by Dave Beech in the first tutorial I had with him as I was presenting my previous work to him. This was raised after I shown him the video BLIP (2004). The interrogation was "do you consider this to be an artwork or do you place it in another sphere?".
This then implicitly raises other questions very important in the definition of my artwork, such as where are the boundaries of art and every other planes?, what is considered art?, what makes a work of art be a work of art and not any other kind of work? and for the present case what makes a sound piece be a work of art and not a song? what makes a song not be a work of art? what are the "forbidden" elements in a song that make it go out of the art realm? and as a present and common questions hovering over all these matters who decides all this, who gave him that power and what is the legitimacy of that power?
The thought of this comes to me as a very simple thing:
I can do the sound piece simply by solely using the sounds of the people I recorded in response to my video (Dance). Though in my opinion, the sound is not going to be that great in two senses:
1st - as a sound piece by it self, it can be funny, interesting and all into the realm of the translation that I am working with. However soundwise it is not going to be a great piece just because there are sound frequencies missing, kinds of sound matters related to things such as the attack, the decay, the sustain and the release of the sounds, the constant noise due to recording and so on.
2nd - this piece is not only about a whole work related to translation and recursion of thought in physical different media, but specifically about a specific culture: clubbing, dancing, electronic music and production of work all in present days. For this, the soundtrack being created turns against itself if made just with those sounds. It gets decontextualized. And turns the piece into another thing that it's not. It's not simply because it's not the reflection I want to put upon the piece.
On the other hand, trying to meet with Dave Beech's thoughts, the sound piece being made just with those recordings might meet more the (un)conventional artwork parameters.
After all this thought given (and more that I am not writing here...) I will probably make the two versions...
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Present Status
The present situation is: I am trying to pull out a sound piece, made from sampling of people's interpretation of the dance video. For this I am using a lot of different software and a Korg nanopad that is going to help me shoot the samples to compose the sound piece.
The software being used is Audacity, Recycle, Logic Pro and Melodyne. All of these are performing different operations.
The whole process is long and painfull as it takes ages to split each sample and to program the samplers for each line.
My intention is to present the sound piece along with the acrylic piece and the video, as I felt that there was something missing when I presented the piece in "Condensation 2010".
The software being used is Audacity, Recycle, Logic Pro and Melodyne. All of these are performing different operations.
The whole process is long and painfull as it takes ages to split each sample and to program the samplers for each line.
My intention is to present the sound piece along with the acrylic piece and the video, as I felt that there was something missing when I presented the piece in "Condensation 2010".
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
