On Music

[myrnova]

This is mostly a self-moderating forum - an anarchist like yourself should appreciate that - so if you find the crowd rallying against you all I can do is suggest you ask yourself why.

In my opinion this forum is "self-moderating" in these terms: 80-90% of the users are americans and the moderator, too. So I would call it "self-understood" (same humour, same cultural background, same influences, beliefs, slang etc.). When people like me or FnF "break" this kind of "american status quo" with their different points of view and different cultural and political opinions, americans get "shocked". For instance, I am considered "antiamerican", as if it was disrespectful or a bad word. It isn't, it is just a political point of view. Of course in a place like this, where 80-90% of people are From U.S. (or "pro U.S."), moderators included, things are percieved in a very different way. Even if this was supposed to be an international forum...

Of course this is OT, so bye bye. It was just to prove I am right.

[scott nathaniel]

Getting back on topic. If it's possible. As a noob in the realm of theory, still going over basics, I would respectfully disagree that traditional music theory is rendered useless. I do think that it becomes a lot of work to try to describe a sound cluster you may create that forces more or less you to work in a particular scale. One experiment in writing I've done on many occasions is to take a snippet of noise with an interesting rhythmic structure and apply FX and EQ etc. until it has a noticeable tonal pattern, then come up with a scale based on that pattern and write a song around it. The original loop of noise would be hard to describe, and the timbre is an overriding importance to the song, to the point to where if you try it on other instruments it would sound awkward, but I don't think that makes traditional music theory and notation useless or even unimportant to learn.
I suppose that if you were a rigid rules person it would make it that much harder for you to break them.
The classic example for me was Guitar Institute of Technology graduates, most were amazing musicians from a technical ability standpoint, and almost none of them I've ever met had a single ounce of originality in their playing. I'm not sure though that that kind of person would be any better suited to skipping traditional theory and embracing music concrete type ideas?
I do think there's an unidentifiable element when it comes to music in terms of intention, in that some people make experimental music and it sounds like a mood, it has a certain element that takes you somewhere, and other people put noise on a record with little regard to the outcome. Not much different than traditional music in that way, some songs sound like technical ability, ego, or art school pretension on display while others do not.

Sorry that initial comment was a bit sweeping and I clarified later that I was talking about a specific type of modern music, or specific techniques often used in modern music. As a music theorist by profession I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't learn traditional music theory. Quite the contrary! It's that in my experience with analyzing electroacoustic music it often isn't enough, hence the discussion on ways to codify these new musical processes.

I'll reiterate issues I've had with traditional methods in both scoring and harmonic arrangement. I mentioned the "Alpha Sale":
Using a traditional staff and note system with that scale is a hindrance unless seriously modified. Because it has no octave, there is no repeating note, whereas in our ET-12 scale, we can reuse the note names and represent the octave range by location on the staff. So, one has to arrange the scale in terms of intervals, which fortunatley traditional notions of seconds, thirds, etc are completely usable and valid. But as you can see, simply altering the scale sytem and removing the octave throws, at least in terms of scoring and arrangement, traditional methods into a tailspin.

[H20nly]

The classic example for me was Guitar Institute of Technology graduates, most were amazing musicians from a technical ability standpoint, and almost none of them I've ever met had a single ounce of originality in their playing.

IMO this is what happens when the rules become the most important thing. many of the people in more modern times that are regarded as pioneers either ignore the rules, bend them, or slam them into each other.




i'm no composer or expert on sheet music... but i'm curious, how would you express something like a whammy bar's effects on a guitar riff using notation?

[stringtapper]

i'm no composer or expert on sheet music... but i'm curious, how would you express something like a whammy bar's effects on a guitar riff using notation?

I think it's usually notated with lines or curves showing a direction, sometimes with an arrow, and then maybe a number denoting how many half steps to bend it. Something like this:

[beats me]

This is making me think too many damn effects in the chain. I watched some demos of Logic’s new MIDI effects combined with stack tracks. You hit a single note and because of all the effects in the chain it literally plays a song that is random but musical and could go on indefinitely.

As as that is, it makes me think of all the people who seemingly want the computer to do the bulk of the heavy lifting for them. “check out what I wrote” is more like “look how I cleverly stacked effects (MIDI and/or audio)”. Certainly more of a math based approach than inspired feeling.

Is that what we are talking about here, or partially?

[regretfullySaid]

On a side note

“check out what I wrote” is more like “look how I cleverly stacked effects (MIDI and/or audio)”

is Grade a sig material...
(I actually have a nice set up for that too )

[H20nly]

i'm no composer or expert on sheet music... but i'm curious, how would you express something like a whammy bar's effects on a guitar riff using notation?

I think it's usually notated with lines or curves showing a direction, sometimes with an arrow, and then maybe a number denoting how many half steps to bend it. Something like this:

cool.

so how would you notate a whammy bar's effects on sparrow?

[re:dream]

So stringtapper, have we advanced much beyond this?

http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/source-text/41/

Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating. The sound of a truck at 50 m.p.h. Static between the stations. Rain. We want to capture and control these sounds, to use them, not as sound effeets, but as musical instruments. Every film studio has a library of »sound effects» recorded on film. With a film phonograph it is now possible to control the amplitude and frequeney of any one of these sounds and to give to it rhythms within or beyond the reach of anyone's imagination. Given four film phonographs, we can compose and perform a quartet for explosive motor, wind, heart beat, and landslide.

Most inventors of electrical musical instruments have attempted to imitate eighteenth- and nineteenth-century instruments, just as early automobile designers copied the carriage. The Novachord and the Solovox are examples of this desire to imitate the past rather than construct the future. When Theremin provided an instrument with genuinely new possibilities, Thereministes did their utmost to make the instrument sound like some old instrument, giving it a sickeningly sweet vibrato, and performing upon it, with difficulty, masterpieces from the past. Although the instrument is capable of a wide variety of sound qualities, obtained by the mere turning of a dial, Thereministes act as censors, giving the public those sounds they think the public will like. We are shielded from new sound experiences.
The special property of electrical instruments will be to provide complete control of the overtone structure of tones (as opposed to noises) and to make these tones available in any frequency, amplitude, and duration.

The composer (organizer of sound) will not only be faced with the entire field of sound but also with the entire field of time. The «frame» or fraction of a second, following established film technique, will probably be the basic unit in the measurement of time. No rhythm will be beyond the composer's reach.

And so on....

[TomViolenz]

Carefully looking around the corner: Is it save to come out now guys.....

OnTopic now:

I have been thinking about this stuff the last couple of days now (well I did off and on bevor too): So here goes the opinion of someone who knows NOTHING about music theory and does not want to either (I may get to that later):

1: I really liked the description of the composer as an organizer of sound. If you see it this way than the composer composing according to music theory is just a special case in a more general field. (Even though he is in the 99% + majority). I could even imagine that a Beethoven of today would think: screw the limits that the timbres of traditional musical instruments give me, I want to create my own unlimited timbres (instruments really) as the synth allows me.
Having done that, he might come to the opinion that the change of timbre of his new "instrument" does not need to be quantized (not in the timing sense) in one specific way as a musical instrument would force him to. I think quantizing (meaning having discrete states) is actually an artefact of how traditional instruments could produce different timbres (sounds) easily (by strings, keys etc). This was by definition quantized. The synth doesn't need this for changing timbre, in fact Robert Moog once stated that adding the keyboard to his original synth was an afterthought not considered essential. I would also point to that the invention of the symphony orchestra obviously was driven by the desire to have MORE timbres to work with.
Coming back to the hypothetical contemporary Beethoven: He might wish to create EVERY sound that plays even once anew by himself and he wants to put it anywhere and anytime, having total control over the "soundscape". What would he still need this rigid set of rules for anymore that is SO influenced by tradition that a genius like him may only feel limited by them? (I also don't believe just because music can be represented mathematically, that this means it is a representation of truth- in that way music is of course also conceptual, just that having this concept around for so long made some people forget that)
In fact I think that one day this will be where music is going: Sound sculptures arranged to soundscapes. (Doesn't mean the traditional way will disappear, just like there are still horse carriages)
The reason why I don't even want to learn music theory, is not just out of laziness or my lack of talent and taste , but because (having no skin in the game and this just being a hobby for me) I wanted to know where I may end up just following my sensibilities and then train my skills as needed. (This is only what I do, I don't say this is THE sensible way to do it. I do understand that it is usually best to know the rules perfectly before you break them. I just chose not to.)

2: Comes in a separat post if it stays civil in here....

[crofter]

Not a bad idea to try and avoid conventional music theory if you want to create something new, I came from the other direction, studied music at school etc. and it's a darn sight more difficult to forget things than it is to learn them, be true to yourself and don't listen to too many people and you may just come up with something different.

[crumhorn]

An interesting take on musical notation here -> http://trumpetangst.tumblr.com/post/642 ... ed-by-cats

[re:dream]

Coming back to the hypothetical contemporary Beethoven: He might wish to create EVERY sound that plays even once anew by himself and he wants to put it anywhere and anytime, having total control over the "soundscape". What would he still need this rigid set of rules for anymore that is SO influenced by tradition that a genius like him may only feel limited by them?

You do need limitations. For one thing, limitations can be empowering http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/10/db-log-day-two/

Secondly, music tends to needa bounded universe within which expectations can be created and played with

Listen to the examples of the composers stringtapper referred to

https://soundcloud.com/pan_recs/trevor- ... ago-pan-12

it is certainly timbrally inventive.. but it is formally very austere, a sound sculpture made of very few materials

Offtopic: re Beethoven, yes, very interesting. I visited the house of his birth in Bonn. They had his original Hammerklavier there. A monster of a thing, with five pedals, including a pedal that put a sheet of paper against the strings, and another that put a glass bar against the strings. I suddenly realised Ludwig van B would totally have enjoyed playing with e.g. an Access Virus or a Nord!

(I also don't believe just because music can be represented mathematically, that this means it is a representation of truth- in that way music is of course also conceptual, just that having this concept around for so long made some people forget that)

careful - don't wake the troll

The reason why I don't even want to learn music theory, is not just out of laziness or my lack of talent and taste , but because (having no skin in the game and this just being a hobby for me) I wanted to know where I may end up just following my sensibilities and then train my skills as needed. (This is only what I do, I don't say this is THE sensible way to do it. I do understand that it is usually best to know the rules perfectly before you break them. I just chose not to.)

What I am finding interesting is learning it kind of organically. Just playing around with scales and chords on my keyboard and Push and then kind of post hoc finding out how it works in theory.

And I have learned one important thing g about music theory: it is a language. Learning it broadens your vocabulary. As I get my head and fingers around the concept, my music making process also gets more confident and my range broadens.

I think one of the spin offs of 'theorizing' musical objects is that it could have similar benefits. What are the different modes of, say, spectral morphing, or granulating / fragmenting a song, how does that become part of a musical language, and how could I learn how to speak that music better?

For instance, just as a chord progression can create a sense of tension and resolution in a piece of music, so can a filter sweep.

Or that moment when you suck all the wetness out of a mix and a certain sound goes from being far away to right up close, wham!

[andydes]

What I am finding interesting is learning it kind of organically. Just playing around with scales and chords on my keyboard and Push and then kind of post hoc finding out how it works in theory.

On that note, when people learn guitar (self taught) the first thing they do is get a load of tab of things they like and learn to play it. This gives them a reference to learning about chord progressions and other theory. And they naturally get a feel for what works. Well it was for me anyway.

I doubt anyone ever buys a guitar and goes straight to trying to write songs without learning at least a few things by other people first. Whatever style they are into. Same with other instruments of course.

But with electronic music it's different. Everyone jumps straight into writing. This may be partly because alot depends on the actual sounds used and the fact that layering is often more important than any individual track. But I think it's also because you just can't find score for even well known synth lines and chord progressions. Strangely the only times you do find them, it's because someone has tried to play it on guitar and posted on OLGA or something.

Of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to hit me up with some links.

[TomViolenz]

First of all thanks guys: I was with absolute certainty expecting roll eye's and derision, so getting thoughtful replies was a surprise

Then: I will think a little more about the second part to my post from the other day, so that will follow later. (Also I want to read and listen to the links that were posted first.)

Coming back to the hypothetical contemporary Beethoven: He might wish to create EVERY sound that plays even once anew by himself and he wants to put it anywhere and anytime, having total control over the "soundscape". What would he still need this rigid set of rules for anymore that is SO influenced by tradition that a genius like him may only feel limited by them?

You do need limitations. For one thing, limitations can be empowering http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/10/db-log-day-two/

Secondly, music tends to needa bounded universe within which expectations can be created and played with

Listen to the examples of the composers stringtapper referred to

https://soundcloud.com/pan_recs/trevor- ... ago-pan-12

it is certainly timbrally inventive.. but it is formally very austere, a sound sculpture made of very few materials

While I agree that limitations and boundaries can be very beneficial, I take issue with the word "need". Could you try to argue the case, why do you think that music can't exist without them?!
When I introduce some elements in my sound sculptures, I often find that they create some sort of expectation and anticipation in and of themselves, without having introduced any rules.
Like your example with the filter sweep: people definitely expect some sort of drop after one, but the only way that rule was ever codified was by tradition, and I even wonder if not the first filter sweep ever induced some sort of anticipation in the listener.
I don't know how and why that works, but it's common.

I suddenly realised Ludwig van B would totally have enjoyed playing with e.g. an Access Virus or a Nord!

I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind

And I have learned one important thing g about music theory: it is a language. Learning it broadens your vocabulary.

Certainly, but I think what we are talking about here is inventing a new language. I'm not sure if learning the old languages is not already pushing you into a certain direction before you even start that endeavor.
Esperanto is not for nothing a mix of already existing languages. (Which in this case is sensible of course)

I think one of the spin offs of 'theorizing' musical objects is that it could have similar benefits. What are the different modes of, say, spectral morphing, or granulating / fragmenting a song, how does that become part of a musical language, and how could I learn how to speak that music better?

But there are significant downsides to this approach too: Some new .vst comes out just about every other week, at least every 5 years it seems to me a new synthesizing technique gets invented. How do you account for those in your language? It would have to be VERY modular for that. Also I discover pretty distinct timbres often only by changing two parameters at the same time in a VERY specific way. How would you express those interactions in your language.
I think if you need a different word for every instance that can happen, you haven't invented a language, you just made up A LOT of words.

Anyways that whole thing of: "do we need a new code/language" is what I wanted to get into in my second point...so I will think about it some more. I tend to "no" for the moment. I mean a real sculptor doesn't need to follow a code either.

[re:dream]

While I agree that limitations and boundaries can be very beneficial, I take issue with the word "need". Could you try to argue the case, why do you think that music can't exist without them?!

OK. That was putting it too strongly. I'll say 'limitations are not always bad". It's like those black swans, I realize.