Text, including the two scores - Columbia University Department of ...

of an outmoded technology, but to those familiar with the technology itself, it is also a reminder specific and idiosyncratic constraints of that technology (and of the skill necessary to make music within those constraints). Is a new version of an electronic piece, realized on faster and indication
complex machines, either less enjoyable or appreciable than the original made on a more constrained (and perhaps by now archaic) technology? I tend to conclude that while the newer version may or may not be more aurally pleasing, it is usually less conceptually appreciable. A pop example: Kraftwerk more
their late 70’s hits (on analog synths) and remade them on mid-90’s digital technology. I prefer the originals. Not only for appreciating the superior took
needed to realize them, but also for the appreciation that they originally built their own equipment from scratch, rather than using commercial hardware or computers. The newer versions are fun to listen to, but feel like the aural equivalent of a splashy Hollywood remake of a cherished original, skill
in which the emphasis on flash comes at the expense of thoughtful storytelling. Similarly, so many canonical experimental electronic works, which originally had a specific physicality combined with some technical challenge or limitation, are now easily virtually realized in a Max patch one
that come to mind include Reich’s tape phasing pieces, Lucier’s ‘I am Sitting in a Room’, or Young’s ‘Dream House’). But who would be (examples
in listening to that? The speed of technical innovation has left a history of pieces that are largely definable as a demonstration and/or artistic appropriation of a new technology. I wonder whether or not, and at what point in time, an
interested
66