Dec 8 2004


Great interview with one of my favorite groups.

Choice excerpts that mirror some views I’ve long held:

”I think we have a natural ability to recognise harmony and I think this exists as much within an engineering context as it does within music. Working in a studio is really no different than building a bridge from metal girders, isn’t it?”

Mirrors my reply to people thinking engineering is “boring” – I see tons of creativity within different constrants and languages and symbols, and different ways of breaking all the above in different environments. Good engineering is beauty, good sex is music, good literature is function.

”It seems that for a lot of people, if they hear something that doesn’t sound regular, they assume it’s random. If live musicians were playing it, they’d probably call it jazz or something. But the fact that it’s coming out of a computer, as they perceive it, somehow seems to make it different.”

If you’re going to define something, define it by it’s substance and not it’s surface. Computers are tools. While some tools leave artifacts, it is in fact the artist that should determine either: 1) master the tools enough such that the artifacts are a result of intent rather than ineptitude, and/or 2) choose the right tools for the job.

Isn’t this just all about meaning? We hear what we want, and label it accordingly, but how attentively are we listening? Maybe you should listen to a semiotician speak on electronic libraries taking the place of God. Trust me, there are parallels there if you look – err, listen – hard enough.