Actually, that serves as clarification. I don't have any problem with
technology being utilised in the creative process - it's certainly
better than "gizmos and effects." I guess the issue then becomes: how
important is the technological aspect to the audience (or various
audiences)? In the case of Random, the press releases pushed the
project as a technological one (almost, I have to say, as a matter of
style) and yet this didn't come across in the performances. (I have no
criticism of the performances - I thought the work was rather good -
but I admit I'm always rather wary of press copy...)
As something of a contrast, we're in the middle of an Edinburgh Fringe
performance run at the moment. There's a lot of technology involved in
the creation of the sound score (it makes use of a particular kind of
structured improvisation via specially designed software components,
and it would have been performed live if not for the inevitable
location/venue problems). Yet there's no mention of any of this in the
programme notes. For the pieces we're showing (all of which are
essentially historical, period pieces, albeit with modern electronic
scores) the realisation technology is irrelevant. What's important is
whether or not it works artistically.
--
Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control
"Welcome to Moscow, Mrs. Gandhi." -- Leonid Brezhnev to Margaret Thatcher