Rebirth of the art of writing?
George Haberberger
I remember reading somewhere that we may be due for a rebirth in the
art of letter writing, primarily due to email. People must learn to
write better to convey the nuances that are lost in face to face
conversation, or the intent of the message could be lost,aka flame-wars.
I'm wondering if this renaissance of letters will be a brief jump back
in an increasingly visually, orally oriented society. What happens
when even the low end home computers have a built in video (audio is
already here) input device, and the net has the increased bandwidth and
better compression algorithms to handle realtime-video throughput. Do
we all speak at our terminals, saying our piece, rather than carefuuly
crafting a post?
I can think of a few objections to this:
1) There are probably people reading this with 15 year old equipment,
perhaps old PC's, or C-64s, maybe a CP/M machine, or maybe a dumb
terminal connected to a VAX at school. How would they interact in an
digital A/V net environment. (I'm composing this on a 286, 2 months
ago I was reading posts on the Xerox 6085, which isn't even made anymore).
2) What about the many students, who often use dumb terminals connected
to mainframes and/or minis.
3) Is there any advantage to using AV means of communication? Lucky's
book "Silicon Dreams" doesn't seem to indicate so, have you considered
buying a picture phone lately? Have you seen any for sale?
4) You would see who you are talking to which might cause you to
disregard a person post for prejudicial reasons, "Don't even read J's
posts, (s)he's just a dumb (insert your favorite prejudice)." And
flames wars might get even more intense, in soc.singles, "no wonder you
don't have a MOTAS, you look like Don Knotts less attractive brother,
you pasty faced geek!"
Why I am posting this here? It seems like a forward thinking group,
and the recent talk about the INDY and shipping voice/visual data
through the net.
Ob WiReD: I'll trade someone my 1.4 for a 386 motherboard :^)
george
Peter da Silva
presentation. I think for a long time voice and video will be annotations in
text messages, rather than a replacement for them.
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Ja' abracas-te o tey lobo, hoje?
'U`
Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Dan Bammes
to the art of letter-writing is the bozo filter. It's as if you had a
talk radio station where you could select only people with intelligent
opinions. I think Samuel Johnson would be in heaven here.
Michael A. Pollock
In article <296273214...@psilink.com>, "George Haberberger" (p00...@psilink.com) writes:
>Howdy,
>
>I remember reading somewhere that we may be due for a rebirth in the
>art of letter writing, primarily due to email. People must learn to
>write better to convey the nuances that are lost in face to face
>conversation, or the intent of the message could be lost,aka flame-wars.
I think we're already seeing a different language of letter
writing in this "rebirth." You never had people adding "smiley
faces" (or emoticons) back when carefully crafted letters were the
norm. In fact, shortened words (like norm) see to be used more
often. One needs a new language for writing in our high speed
world.
>
>I'm wondering if this renaissance of letters will be a brief jump back
>in an increasingly visually, orally oriented society. What happens
>when even the low end home computers have a built in video (audio is
>already here) input device, and the net has the increased bandwidth and
>better compression algorithms to handle realtime-video throughput. Do
>we all speak at our terminals, saying our piece, rather than carefuuly
>crafting a post?
Perhaps; but I suspect we'll see some other, more controllable
interface.
>
>I can think of a few objections to this:
>
>1) There are probably people reading this with 15 year old equipment,
>perhaps old PC's, or C-64s, maybe a CP/M machine, or maybe a dumb
>terminal connected to a VAX at school. How would they interact in an
>digital A/V net environment. (I'm composing this on a 286, 2 months
>ago I was reading posts on the Xerox 6085, which isn't even made anymore).
>
>2) What about the many students, who often use dumb terminals connected
>to mainframes and/or minis.
That's just a temporary artifact of the creationof this new
capability.
>
>3) Is there any advantage to using AV means of communication? Lucky's
>book "Silicon Dreams" doesn't seem to indicate so, have you considered
>buying a picture phone lately? Have you seen any for sale?
The technology's not their yet. You could make this comment at
the beginning of the adoption of any new technology. Imagine the
early critics of VCRs.
>
>4) You would see who you are talking to which might cause you to
>disregard a person post for prejudicial reasons, "Don't even read J's
>posts, (s)he's just a dumb (insert your favorite prejudice)." And
>flames wars might get even more intense, in soc.singles, "no wonder you
>don't have a MOTAS, you look like Don Knotts less attractive brother,
>you pasty faced geek!"
As I mentioned before, some new interface may arise. Imagine
creating a fully realistic "digital HUMAN-LOOKING assistant" that
acted as our personal secretary and official face for
communications. Real face-to-face interactions would be saved for
friends.
>
>Why I am posting this here? It seems like a forward thinking group,
>and the recent talk about the INDY and shipping voice/visual data
>through the net.
This is the kind of discussion we should see more of here.
Thanks.
>
>Ob WiReD: I'll trade someone my 1.4 for a 386 motherboard :^)
>
>george
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> .\\ike Pollock > Internet: mpol...@corpwell.win.net >
> > Prodigy: JJKN60A >
> 914-764-0700 Days > CompuServe: 76206,3200 >
> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aaron Barnhart
:
:In article <296273214...@psilink.com>, "George Haberberger" (p00...@psilink.com) writes:
:>I'm wondering if this renaissance of letters will be a brief jump back
:>when even the low end home computers have a built in video (audio is
:>already here) input device, and the net has the increased bandwidth and
:>better compression algorithms to handle realtime-video throughput. Do
:>we all speak at our terminals, saying our piece, rather than carefuuly
:>crafting a post?
:
: Perhaps; but I suspect we'll see some other, more controllable
:interface.
Also, think of how difficult it will be to master that for people
who don't even program their VCRs (12:00 blink blink say no more).
Instead, consider the experience people have had with word processing
and e-mail in their offices (including home offices). These techs
fall under the category of "things I gotta learn because the company
requires it" and people prove remarkably adaptable to them once it's
clear they have no other choice. Now if leaving a video Post-It
becomes part of the work routine, okay. I can certainly imagine,
what with the ubiquity of voice mail, a Windows/Mac counterpart
just as soon as the tech is up to speed. (For the masses, I mean;
of course it can be done now.) Anything fancier than that, I am
sceptical, just as I am sceptical of *all* schemes that have even
a tinge of "and this is what the future will look like" to them.
All of which is to say the ascendancy of e-mail will not be short-
lived and it represents perhaps the most positive trend in computing.
What I think will happen is the tech of using modems will become
more and more friendly to consumers, borrowing from schemes in mass
techs such as telecom and Nintendo. (Oops, I mean Sega of course,
but that always reminds me of the porn star.) So your mother will
be painlessly connected to an interface where she can write you a
note. All the tech stuff will be sweated for her. The process
will be mediated by a plain-talking troubleshooter in the local
software (instead of gibberish-spewing daemons as is the case now).
But these are means to an end, and the end fundamentally will not
change. Why? Because e-mail is the only (except maybe v-mail)
tech on the horizon that the masses appear even reasonably ready
to adopt.
-- Aaron
John Browning
[on Thu, 18 Nov 93 13:25:03 -0400]
> I remember reading somewhere that we may be due for a rebirth in the
> art of letter writing, primarily due to email. People must learn to
> write better to convey the nuances that are lost in face to face
> conversation, or the intent of the message could be lost,aka flame-wars.
[etc]
Olivetti's Cambridge research lab did an interesting experiment. In
addition to standard e-mail they created video links between all of
the labs workstations. So anybody could communicate with anybody else
via e-mail, live video, live audio, video mail, audio mail and some
I've forgotten. What they found was that different forms of
communications found different niches.
Live video wasn't used much except to check if someone was in their
office to pop around for a chat. (Groups not all in the same building
would obviously work differently.)
Audio was generally overshadowed by video.
Video mail proved extremely popular for short messages -- say 15
seconds to 30 seconds. Video can quickly communicate a lot of social
nuance: for example the difference between "!where's the &^%&*^%
report *&%_head!" and "er, have you seen my report?" -- quickly and
without resorting to silly things like puncutation marks.
E-mail and file-sharing were still heavily used for more complicated
ideas. Apart from anything else, writing ideas down forced the
researchers to think them through -- more or less the opposite of the
speed and spontaneity that made video mail so appealing.
So maybe the answer to the video v text debate is all of the above --
and more (like hypertext).
John Browning
(ja...@doc.ic.ac.uk)
d.e.v. null
>So maybe the answer to the video v text debate is all of the above --
>and more (like hypertext).
i think the nextmail ideal of having that sort of stuff (video, sound,
whoknowswhatelse) included in email is the only coherent policy. it would
provide some forum of real exchange.
our big lastpush now is to make the net seamless, in a more literal
sense. it's going to require some revamping (...).
- sven
____________________________________
| Hello, I am: | s.r. prozak cblanc@pomona.
| -------------------------------- | philosopher of claremont.edu
| | DISTURBED | | disorder, chaos,
| -------------------------------- | depravity, and lust. Fri18:00/88.7FM
|__________________________________|
Richard Singer
been contmeplating some essays/articles on the subject:
>FROM: John Browning <j...@browning.demon.co.uk>
Now, John Browning's answer pertains to the usefulness of letter
writing, but he isn't really addressing the original subject, "the rebirth
of the art of letter writing." The "rebirth of an art" includes not only
usefulness or frequency of use, but momentum of the users, public acceptance
of that use, sensitivity to quality, etc. Up until very recently, letter
writing was a dead art; few people ever wrote letters, and they didn't really
care about those that did. Had I ever publicly admitted my own obsession with
letter writing (and how I often prefer it, for the above-quoted reasons, to
phone conversations, video links, etc.), there probably would have been
a lot of people who thought I was some kind of anachronistic deadbeat.
Nobody ever wrote *letters* anymore; that was something out of the 19th
century!
But suddenly, with rise of the Internet, good old letter writing
has become part of a bold, hip, new medium. Now I can do the same
sort of thing I always did -- write lots of letters -- but instead of
being stuck in the 19th century, I've somehow joined the New Edge!
Yet there's not difference, really, in what I'm doing, except that I'm
pushing a few extra buttons instead of walking to the post office . . .
I bet, though, that of people are writing letters who never used
to, and a lot more people will become more sensitive to the quality of
the letter. Unless, of course, the video/audio/ whatever links take over
before we know what hit us. And I don't know if that would really be
such a good thing, at least from my perspective.
-- Richard S.
Adam B Rosen
> The following exchange holds some fascination for me, as I've
>been contmeplating some essays/articles on the subject:
>>FROM: John Browning <j...@browning.demon.co.uk>
>>"George Haberberger" <p00...@psilink.com> wrote:
>>[on Thu, 18 Nov 93 13:25:03 -0400]
>>
>>> I remember reading somewhere that we may be due for a rebirth in the
>>> art of letter writing, primarily due to email. People must learn to
>>> write better to convey the nuances that are lost in face to face
>>> conversation, or the intent of the message could be lost,aka flame-wars.
>>Olivetti's Cambridge research lab did an interesting experiment. In
>>addition to standard e-mail they created video links between all of
>>the labs workstations. So anybody could communicate with anybody else
>>via e-mail, live video, live audio, video mail, audio mail and some
>>I've forgotten. What they found was that different forms of
>>communications found different niches.
>>
>>John Browning
> Now, John Browning's answer pertains to the usefulness of letter
>writing, but he isn't really addressing the original subject, "the rebirth
>of the art of letter writing." The "rebirth of an art" includes not only
>usefulness or frequency of use, but momentum of the users, public acceptance
>of that use, sensitivity to quality, etc. Up until very recently, letter
>writing was a dead art; few people ever wrote letters, and they didn't really
>care about those that did...
> But suddenly, with rise of the Internet, good old letter writing
>has become part of a bold, hip, new medium. Now I can do the same
>sort of thing I always did -- write lots of letters -- but instead of
>being stuck in the 19th century, I've somehow joined the New Edge!
>Yet there's not difference, really, in what I'm doing, except that I'm
>pushing a few extra buttons instead of walking to the post office . . .
>-- Richard S.
I also find this to be a very interesting topic, and one that will probably
be studied at length as part of the history of communication.
Due to the popularity of networking and email services, the popularity of
letter writing has certainly increased. Like any social development, this
was caused by many different forces, and has multiple consequences. I think
that the availability of electronic word processors began the increase in
personal letter writing, since the task of composing a letter is far easier
for many people using a word processor than a typewriter. Writing in longhand
is the most personal and intimate letter writing style, but also the
most time consuming. Modern society does not encourage frequent time
consuming tasks. IMHO, it also takes more work to write in longhand, and
people are lazy about most things, if they can get away with it.
Even so, the volume of email is much larger than the volume of computer
generated, printed letters. Here's the convenience factor again. If
I'm sitting at my computer and have composed a letter, a few button presses
can send that letter either off into cyberspace or out to my printer. In
the first case, I hit 'send' and I'm done. In the latter, I must now put the
letter in an envelope, address the envelope, stamp it, and mail it. Not very
difficult things, but still MORE WORK. For those who have access to the tools,
convenience will often win out.
So, email access has generated increased letter writing activity -- the form
these letters take has mutated somewhat. While a demand for good grammar and
clear writing styles is certainly there, the nature of the medium permits
some changes. Since the act of writing the letter is easy, the amount of
care given its composition is often proportionately less. Email is often a
spur-of-the-moment communications medium, and encourages the one line response,
the flame, and off-the-cuff writing styles. Maybe its quantity over quality.
But it's probably a much closer written representation of how most
people really interact and communicate than are formal, longhand letters.
Many people who write eloquently can't speak nearly as well in immediate,
one to one conversation.
The limitations of email dictate some of its form. This media is not
just text only, it's usually font independent. The physical LOOK of your
letter, so important in printed or written communication, does nothing to
help convey your intent. This will change as the technology evolves,
but for now, and the past two decades, we have the common user base
of a vt100 type screen and 1 bit graphics. So, we use what we can:
white space for clarity
>> brackets, or __underlines__ for emphasis of different sorts,
smileys :-) [or my favorite term, 'humable emoticons'] for facial emotion,
and (IMHO), acronyms (MEGO, LOL) to describe physical reactions.
All of these things existed in longhand and typewritten letters,
but not limited to streams of serial ASCII data all in the same font and size.
Email has forced us to refine this art to its core.
John Browning points out that, when different kinds of media are available
simultaneously, each will find the appropriate niche. The history of
communications bears this out. Novelty will give way to practicality with
any new technology, otherwise it becomes merely a fad. Video phones have been
offered on and off for years, but haven't caught on in terms of popularity.
Yes, the technology was very crude at first, but so were early personal
computers. Video is now finding a niche for videoconferencing (a very useful
business tool, and cost saving as well), but the jury's still out on personal
use.
Using video to check on whether somebody's in or not is a convenience,
and will probably see widespread adoption. But it takes more work for a
person to make and accept a video call than a voice call -- am I composed
properly, do I look OK, am I home running around the house in a state of
undress (and would my caller appreciate this? ;) ), do I really want THIS
MUCH emotion to be transferred? Voice only is often preferred to a video
call because you can hide more and only convey what is absolutely necessary.
Voice modulation and inflection can sufficiently convey meaning and emotion.
At other times, you don't want subtlety. Let me look the person in the eye.
Judge their sincerity myself. Or, hold up something visual, like a picture,
chart, etc.. For this, video is demanded. But what form of communication
is it when the best way to transfer information is to write it down, then
hold it up to a video screen?
My feeling is that people will use the appropriate tools to communicate
what they need to say, and will combine them when necessary (fax a drawing
to somebody else during a conference call, for example). Or, they will use
whatever they have available to them, and do what they must to overcome
the limitations of each media. In both cases, the availability of the media,
and each media's strengths and limitations, will shape the message sent.
All we know from communications methods of the past will be vital to remember,
since ALL these kinds of media will now be available simultaneously.
But few of these styles will be used in an unmodified fashion.
------
Adam B. Rosen a...@world.std.com
OakBog Studios -- Electronic Media Production and Programming
PO Box 792 Natick, MA 01760 USA
Jiva De Voe
>Instead, consider the experience people have had with word processing
>and e-mail in their offices (including home offices). These techs
<stuff nuked>
>What I think will happen is the tech of using modems will become
>more and more friendly to consumers, borrowing from schemes in mass
>techs such as telecom and Nintendo. (Oops, I mean Sega of course,
>but that always reminds me of the porn star.) So your mother will
>be painlessly connected to an interface where she can write you a
>note. All the tech stuff will be sweated for her. The process
>will be mediated by a plain-talking troubleshooter in the local
>software (instead of gibberish-spewing daemons as is the case now).
>But these are means to an end, and the end fundamentally will not
>change. Why? Because e-mail is the only (except maybe v-mail)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tech on the horizon that the masses appear even reasonably ready
>to adopt.
>-- Aaron
I wonder how accepted even voice mail and the whole voice mail thing is
accepted these days. I note that I can think of noone who really *likes*
those damn "if you wish to discuss product XXXX press 23" systems. I know
I hate em, and having to work with tech support groups alot, I get em alot.
Tig
--
_ _ /| | It costs me never a stab nor squirm,to tread by chance upon a worm.
\'o.O' | "Aha, my little dear," I say, "Your clan will pay me back one day!"
=(___)= | -Dorothy Parker
U | *-=> tig...@indirect.com <=-*
Piers Cawley
> I also find this to be a very interesting topic, and one that will probably
> be studied at length as part of the history of communication.
>
> Due to the popularity of networking and email services, the popularity of
> letter writing has certainly increased. Like any social development, this
> was caused by many different forces, and has multiple consequences. I think
> that the availability of electronic word processors began the increase in
> personal letter writing, since the task of composing a letter is far easier
> for many people using a word processor than a typewriter. Writing in longhand
I've never used a wordprocessor for writing personal (physical)
letters as so much is lost due to the relative rigidity of style that
the WP imposes. Large amounts of what makes a letter personal
immediately go missing when you remove the ability to (for example)
doodle on the paper, or do marginal comments that run away with
themselves and start orbitting the main text. The fact that misworded
things become easy to correct on a WP can also lead to a stilted style
not suited to personal letters.
When I write to a friend it's on good paper with a nice fountain pen,
and once I've got the 'Dear Jimbob...' part of the letter out of the
way then it's pretty much stream of conciousness stuff all the way.
> is the most personal and intimate letter writing style, but also the
> most time consuming. Modern society does not encourage frequent time
> consuming tasks. IMHO, it also takes more work to write in longhand, and
> people are lazy about most things, if they can get away with it.
But given good paper, a fine fountain pen and a decent supply of ink
it becomes pleasurable once more.
> Even so, the volume of email is much larger than the volume of computer
> generated, printed letters. Here's the convenience factor again. If
> I'm sitting at my computer and have composed a letter, a few button presses
> can send that letter either off into cyberspace or out to my printer. In
> the first case, I hit 'send' and I'm done. In the latter, I must now put the
> letter in an envelope, address the envelope, stamp it, and mail it. Not very
> difficult things, but still MORE WORK. For those who have access to the tools,
> convenience will often win out.
And, it can be a real pain if you start macdinking your letter to get
it to look how you want. If you're writing longhand anything goes, but
once it's gone it's set in stone. If you're writing ASCII email,
there's not a lot of options available to spice up your letter; the
text is all.
> So, email access has generated increased letter writing activity -- the form
> these letters take has mutated somewhat. While a demand for good grammar and
> clear writing styles is certainly there, the nature of the medium permits
> some changes.
I think also that grammar is mutating slightly. Certainly I see things
in `Usenet Style' that run contrary to `Chicago Style', and which in
the context of email make a 'damn sight more sense. For example far
more people tend to use a `logical' style of punctuation after quotes
(eg: `... to `Chicago Style', and...' as opposed to `... to `Chicago
Style,' and...'), which is admittedly not a particularly good example,
but it does become important when you're quoting code fragments inline
with letter text; if you put the punctuation inside the quotes it
introduces an ambiguity about what the code fragment really is.
The trend of nouning verbs and verbing nouns also seems to be far more
advanced within the Usenet Community.
> Since the act of writing the letter is easy, the amount of
> care given its composition is often proportionately less. Email is often a
> spur-of-the-moment communications medium, and encourages the one line response,
> the flame, and off-the-cuff writing styles.
Sure it does, but there's still room for the carefully thought out,
reasoned response (or initial post), which takes time and is carefully
formulated. Just because the majority of traffic via email and Usenet
is inconsequential and wouldn't be sent via any physical medium
doesn't necessary debase the medium; there's still room for the long
carefully thought out response (which I hope this is proving to be),
as well as the carefully thought out `off the cuff' aphorism.
> Maybe its quantity over quality.
> But it's probably a much closer written representation of how most
> people really interact and communicate than are formal, longhand letters.
> Many people who write eloquently can't speak nearly as well in immediate,
> one to one conversation.
And vice versa a lot of the time. I consider myself a reasonably
cogent and lucid talker, but I often find myself getting bogged down
when writing stuff, and email certainly doesn't come as easily to me
as direct conversation.
> The limitations of email dictate some of its form. This media is not
> just text only, it's usually font independent. The physical LOOK of your
> letter, so important in printed or written communication, does nothing to
> help convey your intent. This will change as the technology evolves,
> but for now, and the past two decades, we have the common user base
> of a vt100 type screen and 1 bit graphics. So, we use what we can:
And we'll have that for a long time to come. I'd just like to say that
in my opinion good design sense is independant of the font in which
you express yourself. Given a limited pallette of fonts (in this case
limited to one, fixed width font), a good designer will still produce
a better looking document than a bad one.
> white space for clarity
I'm with you all the way on this one. The use of white space is one of
the most important tools at a designers disposal, both in print and
phosphor. The fact remains, though very few people use it well (myself
included in this case, but then this is an extended article which
shouldn't require much in the way of design trickery to get people
interested, if you're bored by what I'm saying you won't have got this
far, and no amount of good design can change that).
A related tool is the use of form feeds (aka ^L) to break messages
into manageable sections, to warn of spoilers, or to make sure that
some killer piece of ASCII art isn't going to be destroyed by an
unfortunate page break.
> >> brackets, or __underlines__ for emphasis of different sorts,
>
> smileys :-) [or my favorite term, 'humable emoticons'] for facial emotion,
Gill, my SO swears that a good writer shouldn't have to resort to
emoticons, and I suppose she has a point. However, we aren't all good
writers, and I have noticed that
[Warning: Sweeping Generalization Alert!]
Americans do tend to be Ironically Disadvantaged. Certainly American
humour seems incredibly heavy handed to my eyes, so I play safe by
flagging stuff that was supposed to be funny with ubiquitous
smiley. However, I don't hold with the perceived wisdom that you can
say anything you like about someone provided you stick a smiley after
it and they won't take it personally.
> and (IMHO), acronyms (MEGO, LOL) to describe physical reactions.
Yup. Although I tend to use these more when I'm Mudding, or on CIX (a
UK bulletin board) which has much less quoting since you can usually
be sure that your reader has read what you're replying to so one line
posts along the lines of
ROFL
don't go too far amiss. To do something similar on Usenet you'd have
to quote the entire message just to make sure that everyone knew which
particular post had tickled you so much that you decided to tell the
'net that you'd laughed out loud.
> All of these things existed in longhand and typewritten letters,
> but not limited to streams of serial ASCII data all in the same font and size.
> Email has forced us to refine this art to its core.
Very true, but I think there's more refining to be done yet.
> [Stuff about different media deleted.]
> At other times, you don't want subtlety. Let me look the person in the eye.
> Judge their sincerity myself.
The trouble with this is that every video conferencing system I've
seen has the tendency to make people look insincere. It's common
courtesy to look at someone when you're talking to them, so of course
you look at their image. This means that the image the person to whom
you are talking sees is one of you resolutely avoiding their glance.
Until we train ourselves to avoid looking at the image while we talk
this is going to be a big problem.
> Or, hold up something visual, like a picture,
> chart, etc.. For this, video is demanded. But what form of communication
> is it when the best way to transfer information is to write it down, then
> hold it up to a video screen?
The best form of communication for this sort of thing is via digital
whiteboard for the `text' and either audio or video for the
discussion. Again, the tools are available, but not everyone has them.
> My feeling is that people will use the appropriate tools to communicate
> what they need to say, and will combine them when necessary (fax a drawing
> to somebody else during a conference call, for example). Or, they will use
> whatever they have available to them, and do what they must to overcome
> the limitations of each media. In both cases, the availability of the media,
> and each media's strengths and limitations, will shape the message sent.
> All we know from communications methods of the past will be vital to remember,
> since ALL these kinds of media will now be available simultaneously.
> But few of these styles will be used in an unmodified fashion.
I once heard a librarian saying that `We're in a post-literate society
now' as an explanation as to why videos were stored on the same
shelves as books in her library. It was said in a tone that implied
that the written word was dead. Personally I think she was being
overly pessimistic in her outlook. Sure this is a post literate
society in the sense that the written word is no longer the major
means of mass communication, or even of mass entertainment (although
that went a *long* time ago), but that doesn't mean that, because we
are far more audio- and video- literate than we were, we can't still
be text-literate too. In fact, until the new graphic language is
formed for the computer interfaces of the future, then we're going to
have to stay text literate. I'm also prepared to bet a reasonably
large fraction of my months wages on the fact that when the new
graphics language of cyberspace arrives, a large proportion of those
graphics will be letterforms.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Piers Cawley, 2 Widford Park Place, Chelmsford, ESSEX, CM2 8TB. |
| pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk pdca...@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| Once upon a time, and a very good time it was, there lived a . . . |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Williams Kastner Gibbs
: I've never used a wordprocessor for writing personal (physical)
: letters as so much is lost due to the relative rigidity of style that
: the WP imposes. Large amounts of what makes a letter personal
: immediately go missing when you remove the ability to (for example)
: doodle on the paper, or do marginal comments that run away with
: themselves and start orbitting the main text. The fact that misworded
: things become easy to correct on a WP can also lead to a stilted style
: not suited to personal letters.
I find no difference in my style with a WP... I've never been a big letter
writer and I certainly never wrote letters with the kind of marginalia you
must put in yours... I've always been a "no one sees the rough product but
ME" kinda guy, after all. But that doesn't mean my style ends up being
stilted, as my internal editor seems to appreciate my style and doesn't
mess it up too much. I guess if I'm stiff, etc. in my writing style it's
because that IS my style.
: When I write to a friend it's on good paper with a nice fountain pen,
: and once I've got the 'Dear Jimbob...' part of the letter out of the
: way then it's pretty much stream of conciousness stuff all the way.
There is NOTHING to compare to a fountain pen on any kind of paper; that's
how many of my "creative" writing first drafts have been done. But I find
it relatively slow and messy, so I use the keyboard most frequently (and
voice-processing systems have no attraction to me and probably never will;
I've never been comfortable dictating).
: [Warning: Sweeping Generalization Alert!]
: Americans do tend to be Ironically Disadvantaged. Certainly American
: humour seems incredibly heavy handed to my eyes, so I play safe by
: flagging stuff that was supposed to be funny with ubiquitous
: smiley.
That's why Monty Python and the Douglas Adams books, not to mention Red Dwarf,
were invented on YOUR side of the Pond, while Phyllis Diller and Andrew Dice
Clay were spawned over here. There ARE Yanks who are not Ironically
Disadvantaged (or even politically correct), thank heavens.
--
Lee Hauser Network Analyst Williams, Kastner & Gibbs
lha...@wln.com "Closest thing we got "A Northwest Law Firm"
lha...@mcimail.com to a NetWare Wizard"
76264...@compuserve.com "It's MY opionion, but my Mommy taught me to share."
Steve Peltz
bulletin boards for close to 20 years now, I've got a pretty good idea
of when I find it better to use text and when to use something else.
There are two major advantages of text: you have time to compose, and
the message has time to be absorbed. One other significant element of
text is that it can easily be quoted/copied/transformed, but that has
advantages and disadvantages that I think cancel out.
Usage of e-mail and "chat"-type facilities has not really changed much
in 20 years, even though answering machines, voice mail, pagers,
cellular phones, portable phones, have all made voice communication
much easier. People then, and people now, still use a computer to type
text at each other in the next room, rather than walk over there to
talk in person (in chat-type situations, the anonymity is another big
factor in text). People still leave e-mail rather than voice-mail. I
don't think its because of the ease of use of the interface.
I suspect that audio capability alone will not significantly change
patterns in electronic communication. It is easy now to set up a
conference call using the telephone, what more do you need? Add in
video, and many possibilities open up for certain situations (business
meetings, where you want to see the look of fear in your competitor's
eyes; personal discussions, where you want to gaze into her beautiful
eyes).
As for the Chicago Stylebook, it even says that using British-style
quoting can make sense in a technical environment. Being a tech-type
and being overly logical, I just use it all the time. The rules about
periods before the closing quotemarks were invented to satisfy type-
setters anyway. Do you actually use those rules when you write things
out longhand? Not that I ever write anything by hand if I can help it.
My hand gets too tired, it takes too long, I can't read what I've
written, and I can't revise it if I need to.
Greg O'Rear
>I've never been a big letter writer
Probably because of the telephone. People used to write better letters
because that was the predominant means of communication. How many new
collections of letters between famous people have there been? Not as many
as in the past, I would imagine. What are we going to have, answering
machine tape compilations?
Maybe with e-mail, now, we would be more motivated to develop writing skills,
especially to avoid the problem of being stilted, or having to rely on
emoticons. But, then again, no. The millenia-old practice of writing gave
way fairly recently to a technological advance (the telephone). We can't
look to another technological advance (e-mail) to provide impetus for
improving our writing skills because probably before too long it will be
commonplace to have voice and/or video e-mail.
So maybe our writing skills will languish, but our audio and video editing
skills will increase. I guess this is part of the trend of not so much
creating information as it is moving bits of it about. In the past, you had
ideas, you edited them, and you produced an excellent letter. Now, as was
pointed out, messages are sent via telephone or e-mail in a stream-of-
consciousness fashion (as this message is). Or, to beat a dead horse rather
sharply, there is the trend of {compose and perform your own music} ->
{perform someone else's music} -> {sample someone else's performance} ->
{purchase someone else's sample of someone else's performance}.
Greeting cards, sound bites, microwave dinners. We consume more than we
produce, rearrange more than we create, and it's all technology-driven.
Now, is this a Good Thing (tm) or a Bad Thing (tm)?
Bill Miller
pen and paper in hand. Yet, there is substance to a fountain pen and paper
that is missing in cyberspace. Then again, I use tooth powder instead of
tooth paste and shaving soap and a shaving brush instead of an electric
razor. These things keep me sufficient grounded in substance in order to
take on the new technologies that arise every 24 minutes or so nowadays.
The development of a new writing style for E-mail and teleconferencing does
present a problem in today's world where only a fraction of its inhabitants
are computer-literate. I don't know how many times I've started to write
BTW or BRB and other computer shorthand terms in letters and notes to
those that do not live in that world. I guess that makes me bilingual.
But as computer-literacy continues to rise and the need for these shorthand
expressions increase, terms like ROFL will become an integral part of
the English language, if not all languages.
Bill Miller
I'm typing in teleconference. Most BBS's are populated by those
that do not even try to spell, punctuate, or use grammar correctly...and
this gives the person the electronic personality of an uneducated lout.
I'm sure that anyone could come up with ten mistakes I've made in this
short message, but at least I'm trying to maintain a slight bit of decorum
in this electronic medium.
Steve Peltz
not very good indications of computer literacy, merely participation in
particular niches, such as IRC, MUDs, or particular newsgroups or on-line
systems. As such, knowledge of their meaning probably indicates familiarity
with computers, but lack of knowledge doesn't indicate much of anything.
For example, I have absolutely no idea what BRB or ROFL mean, other than
the context indicating that the latter term is for extreme amusement.
I have yet to use a smiley.
BILLMI...@delphi.com
oriented note to someone. BRB means "Be right back" and ROFL stands for
"Rolling on the Floor Laughing." And you're right...their use doesn't
show any particular indication of computer literacy...but they are part
of the BBSing language, particularly those using real time teleconferencing
where abbreviations are necessary to keep up with the conversation, especially
for slow typists. I'm not one to use those damn smiley things myself,
although from time to time I'm misunderstood because I'm not using them.
Nor am I prone to using ROFL laughing, although I've been guilty of SWSBC
(Smirking While Sitting Behind the Computer). The bottom line is that
these terms are likely in the long term to become a part of the English
language. Think of terms like "pig in a poke." Hey, I'm not a hog farmer,
but I use it all the time. That's the whole point....words often become
e language not because everyone uses them in their proper context,
but because they become accepted terms and metaphors for things outside
their original purpose.
Piers Cawley
> Piers Cawley (pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >I've never been a big letter writer
>
> Probably because of the telephone. People used to write better letters
> because that was the predominant means of communication. How many new
> collections of letters between famous people have there been? Not as many
> as in the past, I would imagine. What are we going to have, answering
> machine tape compilations?
I doubt that very much. Although there is at least one book which has
been published containing nothing but embarrassing transcripts of
cellular phone conversations taped various cunning eavesdroppers
who've got the hang of fiddling with scanners to get both sides of the
conversation.
> Maybe with e-mail, now, we would be more motivated to develop writing skills,
> especially to avoid the problem of being stilted, or having to rely on
> emoticons. But, then again, no. The millenia-old practice of writing gave
> way fairly recently to a technological advance (the telephone). We can't
> look to another technological advance (e-mail) to provide impetus for
> improving our writing skills because probably before too long it will be
> commonplace to have voice and/or video e-mail.
I really don't think that this is going to happen. There'll still be a
place for words on paper/vdu, if only for the kind of stuff that needs
to be thought about carefully, scrawled all over and generally
referred to more than once.
> So maybe our writing skills will languish, but our audio and video editing
> skills will increase.
Good point. I believe you're right in that people will use the
editting facilities of the computer to fiddle with what they said, but
to do that effectively probably requires a far higher level of skill
than it does to sit down at a keyboard and set down your thoughts
coherently. Sure an A/V presentation has potentially more impact. But
we're not all convincing newsreaders or actors.
> I guess this is part of the trend of not so much
> creating information as it is moving bits of it about. In the past, you had
> ideas, you edited them, and you produced an excellent letter. Now, as was
> pointed out, messages are sent via telephone or e-mail in a stream-of-
> consciousness fashion (as this message is). Or, to beat a dead horse rather
> sharply, there is the trend of {compose and perform your own music} ->
> {perform someone else's music} -> {sample someone else's performance} ->
> {purchase someone else's sample of someone else's performance}.
I have to say that in my case, the musical process stops at the
perform someone elses music stage. Although the beauty of folk music
is that it isn't really *anybody's* music.
> Greeting cards, sound bites, microwave dinners. We consume more than we
> produce, rearrange more than we create, and it's all technology-driven.
> Now, is this a Good Thing (tm) or a Bad Thing (tm)?
Do we really give a toss? I don't think that the AV age will lead to
the "death of writing as we know it", it'll just change (again) the
circumstances in which we write as opposed to use some other medium.
What the new media provide are options. We're no longer tied to one
form of expression, so the medium truly becomes, if not the whole, at
least part of the message. Your choice of medium tells the recipient
something about the content of the message even before they access
that content.
As for the 'consume more than we produce' line. Someone has to produce
the stuff the consumers consume. And isn't the act of rearranging
something an act of creation in and of itself. I've seen some
stunningly creative stuff built up from found images, and I've heard
some wonderful music based on sampled sounds, whether those sounds be
the themes that people like Bach and Beethoven wrote variations on, or
the samples that more modern musicians use to dizzying effect.
Piers Cawley
> Piers Cawley (pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : I've never used a wordprocessor for writing personal (physical)
> : letters as so much is lost due to the relative rigidity of style that
> : the WP imposes. Large amounts of what makes a letter personal
> : immediately go missing when you remove the ability to (for example)
> : doodle on the paper, or do marginal comments that run away with
> : themselves and start orbitting the main text. The fact that misworded
> : things become easy to correct on a WP can also lead to a stilted style
> : not suited to personal letters.
>
> I find no difference in my style with a WP... I've never been a big letter
> writer and I certainly never wrote letters with the kind of marginalia you
> must put in yours... I've always been a "no one sees the rough product but
> ME" kinda guy, after all. But that doesn't mean my style ends up being
> stilted, as my internal editor seems to appreciate my style and doesn't
> mess it up too much. I guess if I'm stiff, etc. in my writing style it's
> because that IS my style.
In this I am with Larry Olivier and British Rail Kippers (Some time
ago British Rail were about to stop offering kippers as an option on
first class breakfasts, and Olivier wrote to the Times (Not the London
Times, no such paper exists) saying he thought it was abominable that
BR could even consider such a thing. A couple of days later the Times
published a letter from John Gielgud stating that, on the many
occasions on which he had shared a train with Larry he'd never
actually seen him eat kippers. Olivier replied that, although very
very rarely had kippers for breakfast, he _liked to know that he
could_), I don't often do such a thing, but it's frustrating not to be
able to when I want to.
> : When I write to a friend it's on good paper with a nice fountain pen,
> : and once I've got the 'Dear Jimbob...' part of the letter out of the
> : way then it's pretty much stream of conciousness stuff all the way.
>
> There is NOTHING to compare to a fountain pen on any kind of paper; that's
> how many of my "creative" writing first drafts have been done. But I find
> it relatively slow and messy, so I use the keyboard most frequently (and
> voice-processing systems have no attraction to me and probably never will;
> I've never been comfortable dictating).
Too right on the voice processing; I just can't get my head round it.
When I'm doing memos at work then I think best with a keyboard in
front of me rather than a microphone.
> : [Warning: Sweeping Generalization Alert!]
>
> : Americans do tend to be Ironically Disadvantaged. Certainly American
> : humour seems incredibly heavy handed to my eyes, so I play safe by
> : flagging stuff that was supposed to be funny with ubiquitous
> : smiley.
>
> That's why Monty Python and the Douglas Adams books, not to mention Red Dwarf,
> were invented on YOUR side of the Pond, while Phyllis Diller and Andrew Dice
> Clay were spawned over here. There ARE Yanks who are not Ironically
> Disadvantaged (or even politically correct), thank heavens.
You're absolutely correct. Almost every American I actually know
personally is not remotely ironically challenged. (Although I'm not
actually sure that Monty Python were ironic so much as terminally
surrealistic, and Douglas Adams is starting to look incredibly heavy
handed; especially in comparison to the truly wonderful Terry
Pratchett -- Now *theres* an author who knows all about irony -- who
just keeps getting better and better). It's just as a people you seem
to have problems with it :)
Dale Robert Horton
>> Greeting cards, sound bites, microwave dinners. We consume more than we
>> produce, rearrange more than we create, and it's all technology-driven.
>> Now, is this a Good Thing (tm) or a Bad Thing (tm)?
> And isn't the act of rearranging
>something an act of creation in and of itself. I've seen some
>stunningly creative stuff built up from found images, and I've heard
>some wonderful music based on sampled sounds, whether those sounds be
>the themes that people like Bach and Beethoven wrote variations on, or
>the samples that more modern musicians use to dizzying effect.
I think this is a good, yet unrelated, point. It's the post-modern
age and as such inovation is not in new creations but new
arrangements. The lead singer to Tears for Fears described it as
the idea that everything has been done before. Originality only
exists in the meathod of presentation.
-Dale
Keith Hedger
>
>I think this is a good, yet unrelated, point. It's the post-modern
>age and as such inovation is not in new creations but new
>arrangements. The lead singer to Tears for Fears described it as
>the idea that everything has been done before. Originality only
>exists in the meathod of presentation.
>
>-Dale
The perfect argument for the rationalization of a society that seems
incapable of fostering or assigning worth to creativity or original thought.
--
=============================================================
= Keith Hedger| "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH" =
= | =
=============================================================
Dale Robert Horton
>The perfect argument for the rationalization of a society that seems
>incapable of fostering or assigning worth to creativity or original thought.
The point I was trying to make is that post-modernist (not all
artists are post-modern) recognize the fact that there is merit
in both the traditionalist and modernist movemnets. Tradtionalists
put merit on realism, to the point that the stories they created
were somewhat boring and unfulfilling. Acurate representations do
not ususally make good stories. Real life doesn't have beginnings
or ending, actions don't exist to reinforce some writer's point
about life and events are pretty much inconsequential. It's an
interesting idea to recreate life on stage but not very entertaining
or enlightening. And isn't that what we're there to see? We want
to be entertained, whether that includes controversy, enlightenment,
romance or sometimes simple pleasures like neat effects.
Modernism is an experiment. It exists to be new revolutionary or
contrary. The intent is to step outside of conventionalpatterns
to either shock or enlighten. All merit is based on being different.
But where does one draw the line? Being different for the sake of
being different isn't good enough by me. Especially if the
presentation becomes clumsy, bogged down by so much innovation
that it doesn't work. There's a reason for traditional ideas.
They are proven to work. The new ideas are not, and so mistakes
are often made in this process of extreme innovation.
Post-modernism is a rejection of the ideas of both these meathods
by accepting both of them with revisions. It accepts them as tools
to be used at convenience, as lessons to be learned from. That
is its true innovation. Both traditionalists and modernists viewed
good art as a specific idea which is inherent in how the art is
produced, rejecting the other as sheer folly. Post-modernism does
not view a piece of work as inherently good or bad by its
meathod of communication, but by how effective it is at achieving
communication. With this in mind, there are literally countless
options in meathod of communication available to the post-modernist.
The post-modernist may not reach out and grab for obvious
inovations like the modernist, but creates new innovations which
aren't as easily apparent through his mixture of traditional
and modern techniques. Finally, we're back where we started and
I can reassert my previous statement with possibly a better chance
for you to understand what I meant.
The post modernist doesn't do anything new, he simply structures it
in new ways. This is not a rationalization of the type "well what
do you expect everything's been done already." Rather it is a new
way of describing innovation (and an inovative one at that) that
is often is overlooked by people who are used to traditionalist
and modernist innovations.
Sorry, I rambled on so long but i felt like I was being
misunderstood, and didn't want to repeat the misunderstanding.
-Dale
la...@alterego.bocaraton.ibm.com
>
>>(Dale Robert Horton) writes:
>>
>>I think this is a good, yet unrelated, point. It's the post-modern
>>age and as such inovation is not in new creations but new
>>arrangements. The lead singer to Tears for Fears described it as
>>the idea that everything has been done before. Originality only
>>exists in the meathod of presentation.
>>
>>-Dale
This is only because current music theory lacks depth and is
in a stagnant phase. An extreme version would be to point
at picture binaries and say "why, they're all the same, they
all have 1's and 0's"
We think of an "arrangement" or "re-arrangment" as being the
same *piece* because of the method of theory and perceptual
model we use to analyze it. In fact, nothing could be
further from the truth. An intonation here, a volume there,
a voicing over there...
We convienently *ignore* these differences (i.e. a chord is
a chord no matter what instuments play it), because we have
been taught a certain analysis which writes them off as
"insignificant". Are they?
It's all in your point of view... one of two extremes,
"everything has been done before" and "nothing has been done
before". Even a CD player cannot produce *exactly* the same
performance twice... and yet the notes are the same.
>The perfect argument for the rationalization of a society that seems
>incapable of fostering or assigning worth to creativity or original thought.
Cute.
Did anyone know that only about 20-30% of what Bach wrote
was "original"? Most of it was rearrangements or variations
on his previous works.
It might be nice if our society stopped worrying itself to
death about *individuality* and *originality*, or at least
define what they are.
Larry Kyrala
Keith Hedger
>>(Keith Hedger) writes:
>>
>
>>The perfect argument for the rationalization of a society that seems
>>incapable of fostering or assigning worth to creativity or original thought.
>
>Cute.
>
>Did anyone know that only about 20-30% of what Bach wrote
>was "original"? Most of it was rearrangements or variations
>on his previous works.
>
>It might be nice if our society stopped worrying itself to
>death about *individuality* and *originality*, or at least
>define what they are.
>
>Larry Kyrala
>
finally original. Bach had his own reasons for how a particular piece
was written (time constraints on a commission, etc.)
The point is that in the larger sense Bach's artistic life, whether he
concsiously designed it that way or not, was spent attempting to
express his original ideas musically. If Bach, or any other artist,
discounts the need, or the desire, to create an original work from the
outset, then indeed chances are none will be created.
As far as your points about postmodern techniques being akin to
arranging...I agree. Check out film scorers or big band
arrangers--highly talented, skilled craftsmen. Not big on original
ideas in terms of their music. Model post-modernist practitioners.
keith
Matt Porter
drh5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dale Robert Horton) writes:
> pdca...@iest.demon.co.uk (Piers Cawley) writes:
>> And isn't the act of rearranging
>>something an act of creation in and of itself. I've seen some
>>stunningly creative stuff built up from found images, and I've heard
>>some wonderful music based on sampled sounds, whether those sounds be
>>the |hdmes that people like Bach and Beethoven wrote variations on, or
>>the samples that more modern musicians use to dizzying effect.
>
>I think this is a good, yet unrelated, point. It's the post-modern
>age and as such inovation is not in new creations but new
>arrangements. The lead singer to Tears for Fears described it as
>the idea that everything has been done before. Originality only
>exists in the meathod of presentation.
>
>-Dale
I don't think that the tendency toward rearranging and spewing forth found
material from other sources is particularly new or postmodern. A
hundred or more years ago the Right Kind of People were all expected to have
a "classical education." What did this mean? For many, it just meant the
ability to toss around quotes from various important people and to
rearrange and regurgitate language and ideas from great works of literature.
The "postmodern" aspects of today's practice include the fact it now extends
beyond the written and spoken word to include other media, and the fact that
anything is fair game -- you're not limited to appropriating material from
The Classics; The Flintstones will do just as well.
Matt Porter
mfpo...@delphi.com
"I read cyberpunk, but I BELIEVE in THE JETSONS."
Dale Robert Horton
>>(Keith Hedger) writes:
>>
>>>(Dale Robert Horton) writes:
>>>
>>>I think this is a good, yet unrelated, point. It's the post-modern
>>>age and as such inovation is not in new creations but new
>>>arrangements. The lead singer to Tears for Fears described it as
>>>the idea that everything has been done before. Originality only
>>>exists in the meathod of presentation.
>>>
>>>-Dale
>This is only because current music theory lacks depth and is
>in a stagnant phase. An extreme version would be to point
>at picture binaries and say "why, they're all the same, they
>all have 1's and 0's"
I think you people are missing the point I'm trying to make.
This is mostly because I was being brief to avoid too far off
topic in alt.wired. Since people continue to misunderstand me
let me elaborate. You say that the current music phase is
stagnant. I agree. But the main thrust to the music market is
alternative which is a rebellion against traditionalistic
80's pop music. It treated earier music as completely
unsophisticated and unenlightened. To correct this supposed
problem, people started creating music which completely
rejected traditional music theory. The result was a set of
groups which produce clumsy, low quality songs IMHO. In
fact people were so intent on being different that they
wanted to be different for the sake of being different. The
end result: a group of bands trying so hard to be different
from the traditional that they are essentially the same.
The ideas held by alternative groups are modernistic ideas,
not post-modern. The alternative movement ultimately
failed in its goal, originality, by becoming popular because
everyone and their brother then became alternative. Post-
modernism, though, proclaims that something wholly original
in style is not possible. It then mixes style or rearranges
styles into better or slightly different forms. These
slight variations end up being more original and definitely
more effective than the attempts at exteme variations which
are unsuccessful.
>We think of an "arrangement" or "re-arrangment" as being the
>same *piece* because of the method of theory and perceptual
>model we use to analyze it. In fact, nothing could be
>further from the truth. An intonation here, a volume there,
>a voicing over there...
>We convienently *ignore* these differences (i.e. a chord is
>a chord no matter what instuments play it), because we have
>been taught a certain analysis which writes them off as
>"insignificant". Are they?
No, these small differences are anything but insignificant.
And it is the post-modernist who recognizes this first. The
founding idea behind post-modernism is that a style of art
is not inherently good or bad. It is what's done with it
that makes it good or bad. You could take a song and change
its string guitar part into a piano part. To a post-
modernist that is a change, and a significant one. A very
different tone and mood usually come from the piano. If
these differences in instrument are utilized effectively, then
the song will end up having a very different effect on the
audience, even though all the notes are the same.
>It's all in your point of view... one of two extremes,
>"everything has been done before" and "nothing has been done
>before". Even a CD player cannot produce *exactly* the same
>performance twice... and yet the notes are the same.
When a performer improvizes in a jazz song, the improvization
is the player's creation, even if the key is determined by the
song writer. If the player says "nothing has been done before",
then the player does as he wishes, ignoring key and ignoring
all the things he's learned in listening to jazz he has the
unique oportunity to create something outstanding or a
complete failure. Unfortunately, the more common is failure.
Fortunately, the less common success is something really
spectacular. This is the philosophy behind modernism. If
the player says "everthing has been done before", then he
has the oportunity to draw from that experience. Playing
in F# when the rest of the band is in E# is not necessarily
a good idea. If he uses some traditional theory and allows only
some creativity, then he is much more likely to get across
the things he is trying to express. When playing jazz, a
performer knows that the type of mood he is trying to portray
has been portrayed before, maybe even better. But that doesn't
stop him from doing it his way just because it has been
done similarly.
>>The perfect argument for the rationalization of a society that seems
>>incapable of fostering or assigning worth to creativity or original thought.
>Cute.
>Did anyone know that only about 20-30% of what Bach wrote
>was "original"? Most of it was rearrangements or variations
>on his previous works.
>It might be nice if our society stopped worrying itself to
>death about *individuality* and *originality*, or at least
>define what they are.
I read this and I wonder if we are arguing for the same thing
but just using different terminologies or philosophies to
get at the same result. The cornerstone of traditionalism
is realism. The cornerstone of modernism is creativity. The
cornerstone of post-modernism is effectiveness.
>Larry Kyrala
-Dale Horton
Dale Robert Horton
>In article <CHovM...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> Larry_...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>>(Keith Hedger) writes:
>>>
>>
>As far as your points about postmodern techniques being akin to
>arranging...I agree. Check out film scorers or big band
>arrangers--highly talented, skilled craftsmen. Not big on original
>ideas in terms of their music. Model post-modernist practitioners.
I disagree totally. Big band jazz was completely traditionalist
art. Fusion jazz (a fusion of jazz and rock) was modernistic in
that it thought it could be completely original in combining two
traditional music styles. For the most part it failed because it
only succeeded in emphasizing the worst parts of each form. Still,
some of it came out really well and is worth listening to. The
post-modern jazz would be current jazz or music that uses small
elements of jazz, like Sting.
Post-modernism is not "well its been done before so lets just
do it exactly the same way" it is "well its been done before
so let's take advantage of subtle differences to make something
new which hasn't been done before." POst-modernism is about
redefining creativity because originality is no longer the main
focus. What is the point of being totally original but don't
get your point across because your untested, original ideas all
fall flat onto their face. If your response is to use some
traditional and some modern techniques in some arrangement to
get your point across, then you've stepped into the realm of
post-modernism. Post-modernism is not taking a Picasso and
a Michelangelo and stpling them together. Post-modernism is
taking the traditional idea of perspective and combining it
with the ideas of impressionism so the viewer can relate the
impressions to specific objects. In a way that does more than
either of the earlier types. If the viewer can idenitfy the
object and an impression about it, then he receives much more
information than traditional or modern art would have given
him. This way of rearranging and recombining older ideas to
make a new one *is* a form of creativity.
>keith
-Dale