Rifle Click --> Shutter Click / synth

["Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 420-2284, CH2-59" <AGOUGH@FAB6.intel.com>]

>Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 1991 11:37:41 -0700
>From:	MTARR@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU
>Subject: An Image In Your Eye
>To:	love-hounds@wiretap.spies.com
>
>"Army Dreamers": someone mentioned this one and the video for "WH" in the
>same breath, and I first thought the complaint about staring into the camera
>and wooden choreography were about "AD" not "WH"!  That got me thinking- she
>is staring into the camera and moving (well, running :) like a mannequin
>in this one, but isn't that commensurate with military imagery?  Also, the
>blinking of the eyes at the rifle-clicks struck my friend (a non-KaTefan)
>so much, that every time she hears me playing it she automatically blinks
>at the appropriate times! :)  

Rifle clicks?  I've learned yet another thing from Love-Hounds.

I've always interpretted that sound as that of a camera shutter opening and
closing.  Camera shutter clicks, if you will.  This interpretation was 
reinforced when I saw the video--Kate closes and opens her eyes for each click,
as if here eyes are the camera and her eyelids the shutters.  

This eye as camera idea is very common and has been used numerous times by
lots of people.

In the context of the video, it causes me to interpret her as robotic (or
symbolically as "nonhuman"), which is reinforced by the way she moves.

The interpretation, alas, doesn't hold with rifle clicks.  I'll have to think
on it.
_______________________________________
>Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 1991 15:17:00 -0700
>From:	chaz@chinet.chi.il.us (Charlie Kestner)
>To:	love-hounds@wiretap.spies.com
>Subject: Bts & Fairlights
>
>Vickie here.
>
>> I'll admit one other thing: I have a record with Altiplano (Chilenean
>> group, plays a lot of flutes etc.). On one of the songs they use all
>> sorts of weird instruments to make the sound of rain, wind, and
>> bird-calls. While I don't think my enjoyment of their music would be
>> any less if they used a synthesizer, my admiration for the production
>> would be considerably less.
>
>I agree with you about this. Whenever possible, real instruments should
>be used. Nothing, no machine, can compare. I was thinking about this
>recently when I was writing about Yma Sumac. I was going back and listening
>to these amazing sounds of birds and animals and unusual instruments. This
>was the 1950's and they were real sounds. Someone could do the same thing
>today with a Fairlight, but it wouldn't be the same.

I agree with you.

However, some groups and individuals use synthesizers to great effect.  The
Who comes to mind.  I think what sets these groups and individuals apart is
that they view the synthesizer as an entirely new instrument, instead of 
viewing it as a substitute for lots of other instruments.  Groups that don't
use synthesizers to great effect usually fall into one of these categories:
	1) can't afford muscians with real instruments
	2) think the sound is "neat" and "technological"
	3) one person can program it all ("one man band" concept)
	4) it's easier (e.g., drum machines)
Not that this necessarily is bad per se--after all, it probably enables more
people to make music.

But here's something to consider regarding real instruments: editing.  In
a recent issue of Stereo Review, an editorial talked about the uses of 
editing in classical music.  The general use of editing is to select the best
pieces of several performances, then combine them into one super-performance.
One flutist went farther, though.  The flutist played the music, then went back
and edited out all of the breaths between notes--forming one "superbreath" for 
the duration of the music.  Now, this is a real instrument, but an unreal
performance.  Which is better?  Flute playing with breaths, or flute playing
without taking a breath?  I don't think it has an easy answer--it's just another
example of how technology is changing how we view and perceive our world.

-andy