On 11/4/07, Greg Earle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What he's saying is simple, really: Where is the New Music?
i did address this, my point is that it is all about perspective! in the past, when worldwide communication was not possible at anywhere near the speed that it is now, local traditions built up their own styles of music which were then "discovered" (haha) by people who were NOT familiar with the music. and because ideas travelled so slowly, it took a long long time for any of these "new" styles to disseminate and become part of what was no longer "new". this was true even up until the late 90's where you had underground music that was being produced locally (and usually on obscure media like vinyl records) that you had to be able to locate and purchase and wait for the post man to show up with your "new" music. but now it is not like that anymore. these super localised subsubgenres that may have one day been able to build up into a wholly different style are now disseminated nearly completely as soon as they begin to exist! grime and dubstep are perfect examples of genres that would have been obscure UK centric dance music even 7 years ago when they started. but the internet has changed that, it has taken the incubation time for any local music down to basically zero, which is going to dull the blow of the "new" sounds as they are never built up very far before reaching everyone. so in effect, it is TECHNOLOGY that is killing the "new" music in a large way! but this is all hilarious to me, because it seems some people would rather be surprised by something once every 10 years than to have constant access to music from all over the world at all times, yet they of course take advantage of the internet to get that music and then to whine about nothing being "new". > And the software was > going to take us there - the Infinite Sonic Palette was > surely within reach. what was finite about the sonic pallette before DSP craziness? what a misconception that is. not that i dont enjoy the sounds of synthesizers and all of that kind of stuff, but to say that before they existed we were somehow limited in sounds we could use in music is pretty ludicrous. On 11/4/07, still want to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I went to university this year to study Composition .. halfway through the > year my Lecturer pulled me aside and told me that while he felt I understood > the ideas and principles of music well .. he would be giving me a > non-continuing > grade because my ideas did not fit into the musical paradigm of the school. > > His suggestion was that I study Sculpture not music. who cares what that guy says? i mean, youre welcome to go to school to study music if you want to, but to me that is the most completely wrong way to go about the whole thing, as if someone can teach you how to express yourself. you can learn techniques and theory and all that crap and still not be able to express yourself in music, and you can be able to express yourself through music without knowing advanced theory or techniques. these things are almost completely unrelated. the best way to learn music is to listen to it! but this is another side of the same argument, really: substituting something else for quality artistic expression. i am as bored by hyper technological crap as i am by hyper skilled musicians. so many "virtuosos" are like machines, they can play very difficult lines but they cannot make good music with it! then you have guys like thelonius monk who never even took a day of music lessons in his life. the kinds of things you can learn in school are exactly like the technology: in some capacity, they can definitely help you out. but they are not a direct substitute for creativity and expression! > I do agree with the sentiment of lot of what Tom has to say. However > I still am not sure how to quantify thinking outside the square as just a > novelty or some gimmick to trick out the music. if it simple augments music that already exists, it is just that: a gimmick or a novelty. if it cannot be translated to more simple means, it is not a musical advance. take any techno song: with a number of percussive instruments and a few melodic instruments (plus of course the understanding of arranging a techno piece) you can easily create the essence of that song without any technology from the last few thousand years. just like that brass band doing acid house or the hundred birds using strings to cover detroit techno classics, it is all just music being played! > Music has always been advanced by technology. While the the harmonic > properties of a strung piece of string had been know for a long time. It was > the combination of many different technologies that lead ultimately to the > piano. but did the piano change anything? no, it was just another string vibrating, even if it is started by a different mechanism. the soundwaves that are pleasing to our ears will not change! > As you expressed Tom dance music is often produced by one person who > plays all parts of the music. It was technology that enabled this. of course, and this did not change music in any fundamental nature! it changed one person's ability to make music on their own, which is good, but music is still music. > So why is it not foreseeable in the future that through technology an artists > would not only place a note in time but to also place that note in space. > > In a world of limitless possibilities why limit the possibilities. the possibilities are already limitless! there is no limit to what can be done within the relatively strict framework of what makes music music. > With these microphones and software they are not only able to establish the > location of objects underwater to with several millimetres of accuracy but > also > tell the size shape and density of these objects. This ability to map space > so accurately is achieved through the use of reading sound waves. sound waves dont change, this is a new technology that > Early this year there was a scientist who studied some of the world most > popular music pieces using advanced geometry algorithms. He discovered > that popular chords in music map into a 3D space of precise geometrical > forms. While a major chord develops a nice symmetrical form, dissonant > chords produce less cohesive structures. why is that surprising? if you go to an electronics lab and look at an oscilloscope displaying 2 sine waves (or square or triangle etc) plotted against each other, if they are harmonics of each other, they look pretty. if they are off, they get jumbled. it is mathematics with soundwaves! there is a reason that these intervals sound so good to the human ear and it has nothing to do with any technology. those intervals sound good on a guitar, on hitting drums together with harmonically related resonant frequencies, on synthesizers, whatever. it is completely independant of what technology creates the waves! > Because it's part of the process, its part of the music. I think if you are > interested are in dance music and in presenting music on reinforced sound > systems then it should be natural that you would be interested in the results > of these set-ups. > > Sure it doesn't matter, you can get away without knowing. > > But in the pursuit of soul, in the search for a deeper understanding of groove > maybe it's worth while looking into the physical manifestation of groove in > the sound waves that a sound system produces. these things are all technical though! i am studying electrical engineering, and i find it very useful to understand what is happening in amplified sound and how to make the sound as good as possible. but all of this is only useful to augment the music that is already created. the music is either effective or not effective before it is played on a soundsystem, no matter what kind it is or how good it is. if something only sounds good on a specific soundsystem, that is a novelty piece, something to demonstrate the technical abilities of a soundsystem. looking at Rhythm and Sound's deejay set at this year's DEMF is a fantastic example. that soundsystem was bonkers, it had such low bass and was so clear and excellent sounding even outdoors that it is crazy. but R&S were playing awesome records on it, which is why their set was good compared to say any of the drum and bass guys (who played later in the weekend on the same system) who definitely make music that is only interesting when listened to on a loud soundsystem. give both of them a tiny boombox, and R&S' records would still sound good while the drum and bass records would be nearly completely worthless. tom
