Last one from me today, I promise...
>>>>> "dn" == darw_n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dn> Exactly, thus making it very unique music in the modern art
dn> world. The producers aren't aware (well, usually not, I
dn> believe Oliver Ho actually says he tries to create toneshifts
dn> audibly, assuming that was really him I was talking to!) of
dn> this effect because no one has really yet tried to examine and
dn> define this art on a more scientific level, the producers are
dn> generally sitting around making something they think sounds
dn> good, often never becoming intellectually involved in their
dn> own art, for good or for bad. Well, _why_ does it sound good,
dn> and _why_ is utter repeatition often tear jerking to some?
dn> Also, the basic appeal I said above resides in the listener
dn> and the artist as he is being the listener too, NOT a creater
dn> in it's definition being one who is in total control with a
dn> completed image as to his/her goal. I am willing to bet that
dn> when Beyer makes a track he is more listening than creating,
dn> he is toneshifting his own tracks while in the studio...
I wouldn't be so sure. Considering that the foundations of the modern
musical avant-garde were built on various composers' inquiries into
the effects of repetition and minimalism (Steve Reich, Iannis
Xennakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Terry Riley, LaMonte Young, Philip
Glass), and given that most of the folks who've been making techno for
a few years have probably thought pretty hard about what they're doing
(you have to, to stay interested enough to keep doing it), I don't
think it's at all safe to assume that the producers are ignorant of
the possible effects of their music. In underground dance music, where
a very large percentage of the producers are also DJs, this is doubly
true. If I understand what you mean by "toneshifting", DJs like Claude
Young have purposefully been using flanging, phasing, EQ tricks, and
whatnot to shape and bring out the "hidden music" within minimal
techno for years.
Art is not science, and while most arts have at least a partially
scientific / mathematical foundation, none of them can be _defined_
scientifically. Even the second- and third-order effects generally
can't be defined, and I don't think it will be possible to do so until
we have a complete theory of cognitive science and psychology, which
is still a long ways off.
In addition, to state "the producers are generally sitting around
making something they think sounds good, often never becoming
intellectually involved in their own art" sounds pretty arrogant from
where I sit. I think most of them have had to think pretty hard about
what they're doing, even if they can't (or won't) articulate the
results of that process. If you're not following a rote formula (and
sometimes even if you are, if you're doing it well), making music is
really hard. You _have_ to think about what you're doing, even if it's
not on some highfalutin theoretical level.
Finally, I don't think I've _ever_ met an artist who can, godlike,
take an idea and turn it into a finished work without the idea being
destructively altered at least a little along the way. Stockhausen,
maybe, but Stockhausen is a genius and comes from a completely
different tradition than anyone you and I are likely to hear on a pair
of 1200s / behind a 909. Making art puts you in this incredibly
bizarre position, where the act of creation alters the idea you're
attempting to make manifest. Creators are never completely in control.
Forrest
. . . the self-reflecting image of a narcotized mind . . .
ozymandias G desiderata [EMAIL PROTECTED] desperate, deathless
(415)558-9064 http://www.aoaioxxysz.com/ ::AOAIOXXYSZ::
