On Music

[stringtapper]

Yeah it's a shame. Another thread spirals into the shit house because of the Autistic Italian.

I'm going to step away from this for now but I will come back to some of the points Finn and others have made that are actually on topic and, more importantly, interesting.

[regretfullySaid]

Just to go a little further when I did mention the OP, is even though notes may be less distinguishable than traditionally since electronica is more about timbre, most sounds still keep a fundamental frequency, thus maintaining some "musicality". And even if the person isn't intentionally picking certain frequencies, but they're adjusting pitches until it "sounds right", it's most likely because of "the code" or musical familiarity.

An example may be that a musical layman really likes a certain artists house or drum and bass; they may think that it's just because of their style. Then they come across a tutorial on YT about tuning drums, and see that you can add a musical relationship between kick, hi-hat, snare, bass, etc. Then they listen to their favorite artist with fresh ears and realize the drums hold a certain melody they didn't notice before.

Personally I really like it when something can sound random and slowly more structure is introduced and you realized there's an intentional musicality behind it.
Of course, if you have more experience with music and listening, then it's easier to tell if there's intentional dissonance or not, but that can make it even more pleasurable if the creator is aware and intentional in what they are doing because they can fool you or take you somewhere you weren't expecting. Something along the lines of "it's harder to please a scholar than layman".

Either way I don't see why anything should change. Unless you and your audience don't mind hearing complete dissonance all the time, even abstract timbre's are going to have a musical relationship, whether intentional or not. Don't see why it needs to be one or the other.

[re:dream]

Well precisely. Music will still have frequency, and those frequencies still have relationships with one another. So it's not as if that aspect of musical experience / information no longer applies.

[regretfullySaid]

Isn't that the argument of the OP though? Att least, to humor the argument since it seems like troll bait.

But in short, no, we don't need a new way. If one needs a new excuse....then sure.

You don't need a piano roll, and you can take a look at modular hosts like Sensomusic Hollyhock that may fit an idea of a "new way", or am I not thinking outside the box enough for the question?

[stringtapper]

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of exactly what kind of music I'm talking about, which is probably my fault for not making it more explicit.

I'm not talking about pop electronic music. I'm talking about what's generally known as electroacoustic music. Essentially it's a direct evolution of Western Art music, or what people broadly call classical music. Much of this music does not conform to traditional note-based forms. All kinds of different processes occur in this music such spectral morphing or cross-synthesis, which is the mapping of the spectral content of one sound onto another to effect a seamless transition where one sound morphs into another.

This isn't stuff that's made in a piano roll editor. We're talking Max/MSP, Supercollider, Csound type stuff.

Of course there are mixed compositions that may in fact use note-based schemes alongside the sound-based and timbral processes.

The point here is that there are processes, musical processes, that are being employed by composers that can't be defined with the older conceptions, or what composer Trevor Wishart calls "lattice-based" musical processes.

Not sure why the "troll bait" comment was necessary.

[regretfullySaid]

Ok without that specific explanation it seemed like an ambiguous enough enough to qualify.

Ok, so that's cool. It reminds me of a thread on here of someone asking about spectral morphing and someone was looking into and mentioning the KUMA(?)system. Didn't Amon Tobins last album employ alot of that? A more prosumer approach would be Iris, then there's Sony Medias overlooked Spectralayers. I don't think it will be long from now where you can basically
cut and paste pieces of spectral images from one and many sources like photoshop. It will make a new genre for one, that'll be lame exploited part, but yeah, I see what you mean.

It also reminds me of Onyx Ashanti's discovery of granular time-stretching into his own realtime beatjazz system programmed in Pure Data. Granular synthesis may seem old school compared to the spectral/cross-synthesis, but still "underground" enough I think for equal amount of exploration and use.

You might want to check out how he's evolved over the past few years. His earlier days may have sounded less abstract, but the direction he's at now is more interesting, raw. If you check out the post previous to the one I linked he has a 25m recording that serves as a good example. Or maybe the latest video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCJSqvFT ... page#t=214

Although that may still be more along the lines of traditional or off-tangent than what you mean

[re:dream]

I'm not talking about pop electronic music. I'm talking about what's generally known as electroacoustic music. Essentially it's a direct evolution of Western Art music, or what people broadly call classical music. Much of this music does not conform to traditional note-based forms. All kinds of different processes occur in this music such spectral morphing or cross-synthesis, which is the mapping of the spectral content of one sound onto another to effect a seamless transition where one sound morphs into another.

.

Oh, this sounds really interesting. Artists, please. tracks, 'albums', releases. I want it!

I am going on a long plane journey and it sounds like this might ease the transatlantic and transit lounge pain.

shadx312, thanks for the Onyx Ashanti link, that looks really fascinating!

[crumhorn]

The thing about modern music is that the traditional conception of a "note" doesn't really apply these days.

I hear a lot of modern music every day and it's jam packed full of notes. The vast majority of working musicians still rely very heavily on notes.

But I see from later posts that you are specifically talking about music that doesn't limit itself to traditional pitch structures (I won't get drawn in to the argument about whether or not it's really music). In this case the traditional concept of a note is - by definition - inadequate to describe it.

Is this a modern phenomenon? I don't really think so, it's always been possible to make noise/sound based music and to escape from traditional pitch structures if one wanted to. The Human voice alone or in combination is more versatile than just about any synthesizer. The range of tone colours and sound effects available from a symphony orchestra and a choir is enormous. Not to mention all the non western music in the world (e.g. throat singing FFS).

I feel the distinction is not between modern or (ancient?) but between tonal and non tonal, a distinction which has always existed.

We have the ability to sculpt things that some call "sound objects" that defy the old conceptions of a "note" and are more akin to the concept of sculpture wherein an "object" (sound) can be modified to the point of being indistinguishable from the original sound that we started with.

This makes traditional music theory useless and means that we have to come up with an entirely new way of codifying our methods.

Discuss.

If you creating the musical equivalent of sculpture then maybe any kind of codification scheme - beyond what is necessary to work in a quantized, digitized world - would be against the very spirit of what you are doing.

It is only possible to reduce something to a code if it has some kind of guiding structural principles. If musicians working in this field (which I agree with myr9Vnova is a very minority interest) want a system to codify their music then they first need to make a theory pinning down the structural concepts that are represented by the symbols in their system of notation. But then it starts to resemble architecture more than sculpture.

Another important distinction is between art which is a single, spontaneous, creative act - like sculpture, painting, jazz improvisation, etc - or a repeatable performance - like a ballet, symphony or a pop song.

The first type doesn't need any notation or even a theory beyond vague poetic notions or some form of "manifesto". If the end product of your art is a sound recording, never intended (or even possible) to perform live then IMO it falls into this category. I don't really see where notation comes in to it.

[re:dream]

Well, if (among other things) in 'traditional' music, notation can be thought of as a series of instructions to the musician, surely the same is possible for the manipulation of 'sound objects' a la onyx ashanti, etc?

You could develop such a 'code'. It would be about notes and time, but it would also have to involve codification of a whole range of other operations.

[myrnova]

On the contrary, the code is something OBJECTIVE, because universal and pre-cultural. 1 y.o. children can perceive the difference between "music" and "sound" because of the code. It is even "pre-linguistic".

Utter nonsense. Go to a tribe in Africa and they will know fuck all about your "code." This is basic ethnomusicology 101. The idea of a universal musical language intrinsic to humans is a long outmoded idea that only extreme conservative or ethnocentrist minds would still believe.

Please stop using the "universal code" line unless you can provide some compelling peer reviewed research that supports this strange, old fashioned, conservative belief of yours.

A tribe in Africa will produce "chants" and rhythms which follow the universal human code (music). No matter if they don't know it is a "universal" process. It is like language: the fact they probably aren't able to write or read their own language does not mean it is not a language (with its universal code). "Universal code" has nothing to do with a conservative belief. It is like blood: every human being has it in their veins, it is something universal... every doctor knows it, whatever belief they can have. The same for children: they naturally recognize music, language, faces and such: no matter if they can conceptualize them: it is something "pre-cultural". "Ethnocentrism" is when fascists claim "ours are the real arts, the most complex and perfect" etc. It has nothng to do with "universal code". Fascists and ethnocentric iditos deny there is a "universal code", they believe in "human races", for instance they think an african is different from an american, they believe in "white race" supremacy and such crap (see KKK)...

Regarding the reactions (which I consider infantile and disrespectful): the topic is about "music", not about "sound modification" or "timbre". I suggest stringtapper to change the title, e.g. "on timbre" if he wants me not to discuss and avoiding those infantile reactions of finn, shadx etc. (the ones derailing the thread, with stupid pictures, offences and such) For the rest, I just answer questions. Stop asking me questions, stop reacting like isteric pussies and keep on talking on "timbre": I will "disappear"

P.S. "Pussies"

[crumhorn]

Well, if (among other things) in 'traditional' music, notation can be thought of as a series of instructions to the musician, surely the same is possible for the manipulation of 'sound objects' a la onyx ashanti, etc?

You could develop such a 'code'. It would be about notes and time, but it would also have to involve codification of a whole range of other operations.

Agreed, but when you put performers into the equation you have to decide what is important for you to control via means of the score and what is in the domain of the performer to control. ie you need to define the concepts underlying your system of notation. In the case of 'sound objects' the creator of the object has already created a set of concepts to explain that object and define its interface, so you're already half way there.

But to develop a standard code would require at least 2 composers of such music to agree on what exactly it is they are trying to define and what can be left to the performer to decide. ie they have to define what they mean by "Music"

The great power of traditional notation is that it doesn't try to describe every possible sound but it represents a closed set of concepts that are adequate to describe the vast majority of western tonal music.

[myrnova]

But to develop a standard code would require at least 2 composers of such music to agree on what exactly it is they are trying to define and what can be left to the performer to decide.

I guess it is a language barrier or smth? When I talk about "the code" I don't mean the interpretation of it (e.g. "notation"). Notation is not the code. The code is pre-linguistic and a-cultural. It is objective. That is why timbre modification cannot be called "music": because it is something "subjective", there is no objective code, it is just a matter of sound/timbre (art of sound", "sound sculpture", "nice sound effects", "audio collage"... whatever).

Regarding effects, timbre etc. there is no need to create a brandnew interpretation/notation... "abbellimento" is more than enough...

[crumhorn]

You are talking about "The Code".

I'm taking about a code. if you're going to have one you have to agree on what it means, which means that you need to define the concepts conveyed by that code. That is all - I'm saying. Not going to get drawn in to a discussion on what is or is not music.

[myrnova]

You are talking about "The Code".

I'm taking about a code. if you're going to have one you have to agree on what it means, which means that you need to define the concepts conveyed by that code. That is all - I'm saying. Not going to get drawn in to a discussion on what is or is not music.

Well, it was you who wrote: Another important distinction is between art which is a single, spontaneous, creative act - like sculpture, painting, jazz improvisation, etc - or a repeatable performance - like a ballet, symphony or a pop song.

It is understood what is music and why both audio tracks in a sequencer and "modern music" cannot be considered "music", but just sound.

By the way, the discussion is "on music"... I suggest Stringtapper to change the subject: "on timbre" (since you all seem to be so scared about "the difference between music and sound" in a thread called "on music" )

[re:dream]

The great power of traditional notation is that it doesn't try to describe every possible sound but it represents a closed set of concepts that are adequate to describe the vast majority of western tonal music.

Yes exactly. And I think that the kinds of musical innovation stringtapper is talking about are so fluid and idiosyncratic that you don't have the conditions for such a closed set of concepts.

But you could have fun trying.