Re: ruccus.org: Calling All Unconventional Computer Music Artists

Jim Andrews wrote:

>
> > Ruccas.org is launching on August 1st. It is a web site designed
> > to provide exposure exclusively to computer artists creating
> > music via unconventional means.
>
> As long as they are mp3's or wavs or whatever? Are there any
> unconventional
> mp3's?

Not sure I understand what you mean. All of the artwork on the site will be in .mp3 format.

> > > Ruccas.org is launching on August 1st. It is a web site designed
> > > to provide exposure exclusively to computer artists creating
> > > music via unconventional means.
> >
> > As long as they are mp3's or wavs or whatever? Are there any
> > unconventional
> > mp3's?
>
> Not sure I understand what you mean. All of the artwork on the
> site will be in .mp3 format.

In a bar or in a car or on a bed or in your head i suppose there can be
unconventional mp3's. but sitting in front of a computer screen, there are
none. the unconventional audio in front of a screen is in shockwave and
flash, java, that sort of thing. and more exciting, as far as i'm concerned:
it involves a synthesis of audio and programming/interactivity, visuals,
network operations, etc.

ja
http://vispo.com/vismu

Jim can speak for himself but I speculate he means
that this excludes generative music work, for example,
that one might make in Flash or Director - mp3s are a
tad on the linear side.
best
michael

— John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > > Ruccas.org is launching on August 1st. It is a
> web site designed
> > > to provide exposure exclusively to computer
> artists creating
> > > music via unconventional means.
> >
> > As long as they are mp3's or wavs or whatever? Are
> there any
> > unconventional
> > mp3's?
>
> Not sure I understand what you mean. All of the
> artwork on the site will be in .mp3 format.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> I understand now. Yes, I would've loved to offer the possibility
> to submit works that cross the now dilapidated boundaries between
> art forms, but due to bandwidth constrictions, such a thing is
> not currently possible. Perhaps in the future when the site
> becomes popular, donations could be made for facilitating such a
> thing. These sorts of sites require massive amount of bandwidth.
> In this case, the site would not be possible without the Internet
> Archive. Unfortunately, their help does not extend to flash files
> and video.
>
> I assure you though that you will find some of the material on
> this site exciting, given the people that I know will be
> submitting to it. I'm strongly encouraging people to submit under
> a lenient creative commons license, so perhaps some AV works will
> end up being produced because of the site.

I don't think the bandwidth considerations are any more onerous than what is
involved in letting people download mp3 files. Mp3 files are typically 3 to
20 mb in size (at about 1 mb/minute of sound). All you do is supply a url
for shockwave/flash etc stuff. you don't need a streaming server or
whatever, like you do to stream Real Audio.

So I don't think there are any real technical or bandwidth obstacles, just
to be clear.

But your site is planned for mp3's, apparently, and only mp3's. Which is of
course no skin off my back, and i hope your project is exciting.

Best wishes with it, John!

ja

Jim Andrews wrote:

> I don't think the bandwidth considerations are any more onerous than
> what is
> involved in letting people download mp3 files. Mp3 files are typically
> 3 to
> 20 mb in size (at about 1 mb/minute of sound). All you do is supply a
> url
> for shockwave/flash etc stuff. you don't need a streaming server or
> whatever, like you do to stream Real Audio.
>
> So I don't think there are any real technical or bandwidth obstacles,
> just
> to be clear.
>
> But your site is planned for mp3's, apparently, and only mp3's. Which
> is of
> course no skin off my back, and i hope your project is exciting.

Well… I've gotten several emails so far asking if flash/shockwave works would be accepted. It seems there is more demand for this than I thought… I assumed a resource for this already existed. Perhaps not? If not, then I will spring for some extra bandwidth and extend the site out, unless there are any objections about the flash works potentially overshadowing the audio works.

- John

> Well… I've gotten several emails so far asking if
> flash/shockwave works would be accepted. It seems there is more
> demand for this than I thought… I assumed a resource for this
> already existed. Perhaps not?

Yes, there are resources. www.turbulence.org (ny) continues to commission
and publish interesting net.art, some of which focusses on audio.
www.neural.it/english (italy) is an excellent source for learning about new
digital art of all sorts and is consistently good concerning its reporting
on audio art. www.soundtoys.net (uk), run by stanza is perhaps the most
prominent site that focusses exclusively on audio-oriented interactive
net.art. i published an article a while ago on interactive audio for the
web; the article has lots of links in it at
http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?articleE .

Your original post said "It is a web site designed to provide exposure
exclusively to computer artists creating music via unconventional means. It
aims to be an important site in the world of computer music." Honestly, if
you're not really interested in shockwave/flash/java work, you should think
twice about getting involved in it. You won't be doing anybody any favors.
There are resources for this sort of work. I could not let your above quote
go, though, without mentioning this sort of work. A web site that makes this
sort of claim and delivers only mp3's, to me that is more 'typical' than
'uncoventional' concerning music, digital or not.

ja

> If not, then I will spring for some
> extra bandwidth and extend the site out, unless there are any
> objections about the flash works potentially overshadowing the
> audio works.

Jim Andrews wrote:

> A web site that makes this
> sort of claim and delivers only mp3's, to me that is more 'typical'
> than 'uncoventional' concerning music, digital or not.

I strongly disagree. The medium used has nothing to do with how "conventional" the art is. Most of the music I hear in online interactive works is actually very conventional, despite the fact that it is being used in a newer medium. There is plenty of room left to be "unconventional" when working with music alone, I can assure you.

That being said, ruccas.org is accepting interactive and generative software works too, provided that the music is the main focus of the works.

- John Nowak

> > A web site that makes this
> > sort of claim and delivers only mp3's, to me that is more 'typical'
> > than 'uncoventional' concerning music, digital or not.
>
> I strongly disagree. The medium used has nothing to do with how
> "conventional" the art is.

That isn't quite true, is it. mp3's are less exciting, regardless of the
content, on the net than they can be in other contexts. i suspect this is,
at least in part, because the net/web involves several media, ie, the medium
is plural. a radio station on the net is interesting because of the whole
venture of it, the interface and of course also, no doubt primarily, the mp3
or other (almost) strictly audio involved in the station. how do you do
radio on the net? how does that work? that is part of the interest of radio
on the net, which is somewhat additional to the audio material itself. which
kind of reminds me of gregory whitehead's saying somewhere that the
*material* of radio is the network.

> Most of the music I hear in online
> interactive works is actually very conventional, despite the fact
> that it is being used in a newer medium.

I suspect that's probably true. I take it you have then listened to a few,
which is encouraging, John.

just got back from my first trip to england. went to london for a few days
and loved it. i had some conversations with various folks about interactive
audio. the net/web, so far, has influenced the *distribution* of music more
profoundly at this point than it has influenced music *itself*. however,
anyone who is serious about interactive music for the web would, i presume,
aspire not simply to affect the distribution or other infrastructure
surrounding music and its culture but would wish to contribute something
radically different musically.

this can be in the actual music itself or in the form of the actual music
itself. and the form is more or less shaped or suggested by the nature of
the interactivity and the delivery system.

and, at least from my perspective, i see more undiscovered musical
possibility there than in innovative form via simply different instruments,
for instance.

> There is plenty of room
> left to be "unconventional" when working with music alone, I can
> assure you.

but of course. i don't mean to argue otherwise. and even on the net this is
true. yet the net's being plural in its media does change things a bit,
doesn't it, in not the same way but a way related to, say, music on tv.
sound alone on tv can of course be more interesting than many a tv program,
but we recognize that sound alone on tv avoids the whole visual dimension of
television, and that the visual dimension of tv is more or less crucial to
the tv medium.

the net/web has a visual dimension and also interactive dimensions, more
interesting textual dimensions than tv or film, and a whole network to it
that is really very different from tv networks, for instance, or radio
networks, typically.

> That being said, ruccas.org is accepting interactive and
> generative software works too, provided that the music is the
> main focus of the works.

accepting such work is good, but i would want to see that you were doing
interesting things with it before i sent you anything. you mentioned that
you were willing to accept it as long as it did not deflect focus from the
mp3s.

ja