Author |
Message |
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
deknow wrote: |
there are times when methods and/or process are also importnat, but if the music doesn't convey something auraly, then those things are irrelivent (imho). for instance, one can compose with a tonal or serial approach....but if the music sucks, who cares. |
At least over here in Europe we do see that a lot of "serious modern music" is very much about methods and processes, at times damned close to conceptual art and the very resulting music cannot truly be said to be the most important "result". I tend to think I am seeing this trend fading now though. Frankly, I do find a lot of this music to be more in the novelty department than new or experimental or whatever one might think of calling it.
But you do mention the "serial approach" here. I like a lot of serialist music. I confess to that. It is however commonly accepted that serialist music might sound awful or nonsensical if the listener doesn´t understand the code and/or the processes involved. At times I think it is rather hard to actually figure out if the ( serialist) music stinks or not. Serialist music does however have a grammar/code and it surely helps to know this in order to appreciate the music. So.. seems like we are back to the initial " I want my new grammar today" as stated by mr. Rodchenko.
And do take a look at that "Pointless Composition" pix I posted earlier in this thread. Pointless? I don´t think so. The artist is playing with us. And .. does it look like it could have been painted by Kandinsky? Sure.. they share the code/grammar. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | And .. does it look like it could have been painted by Kandinsky? Sure.. they share the code/grammar. |
But then not quite. Rodchenko has his own touch or voice or whatever you might want to call it. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
This is very interesting. We're almost approaching the age-old question, "What is music?"
Though the question is related to the topic here, we can't forget that there is a difference between music that is performed live and music that is created in someone's bedroom on a computer. On stage, "conceptual art" and "music" is blurred. You can "get away" with more. You know of John Cage's 4'33? There's more room for "rule-breaking" on stage.
That said, an "experimental music" artist's work has to pass this test. If it has no structure, sounds unpleasant, but makes for a great live performance, it cannot possibly be grouped into the same genre(s) of "experimental music" that most of us here think of.
I bet if you asked the average person on the street what experimental music was, they would describe something with no rhythm, no "pleasant" or "easily-defined" melody - something that is difficult to listen to. In fact, the word "electronic" may not come up as often as you may think. But I bet he/she would be picturing a live performance of unusual instruments before picturing a computer and synthesizers in someone's bedroom... |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
opg wrote: | This is very interesting. We're almost approaching the age-old question, "What is music?" |
Some great points there mr. opg. As for the "what is music?" question, one extremely telling part of how this thread evolved was that we didn´t discuss this at all. This doesn´t mean I want a splitting of the topic here. I am fairly sure we "almost" agree on what music is. You mention Cage. I am not convinced that piece really is music. That does not matter though. It has had a profound effect on music and the politics of listening to music. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
opg wrote: | they would describe something with no rhythm, no "pleasant" or "easily-defined" melody - something that is difficult to listen to. |
Indeed. This might be OT, but I want to propose the idea that it should be possible to make a truly experimental piece with an easily-defined" melody and yes.. throw in "pleasant" too. Why? Because I am fairly sure that the "grammar" could be stretched so far that it almost breaks. Possibly this wouldn´t REALLY be experimental because it would have to be made extremely carefully and with a lot of attention to how the rules are "applied".. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I will continue this ..
It could of course be seen as experimental in the sense that such a piece could be using the rules to break the rules and then stretch them some more in order to end up with something that according to the grammar couldn´t possibly be music.. and still be strutting the melody and the "pleasant" bit .
Just an idea... _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | opg wrote: | they would describe something with no rhythm, no "pleasant" or "easily-defined" melody - something that is difficult to listen to. |
Indeed. This might be OT, but I want to propose the idea that it should be possible to make a truly experimental piece with an easily-defined" melody and yes.. throw in "pleasant" too. Why? Because I am fairly sure that the "grammar" could be stretched so far that it almost breaks. Possibly this wouldn´t REALLY be experimental because it would have to be made extremely carefully and with a lot of attention to how the rules are "applied".. |
First I thought you were defining experimental music as music that wasn't "made extremely carefully and with a lot of attention to how the rules are "applied"," but I think I see what you mean. This is now starting to make my brain hurt! |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
opg wrote: | First I thought you were defining experimental music as music that wasn't "made extremely carefully and with a lot of attention to how the rules are "applied"," but I think I see what you mean. This is not starting to make my brain hurt! |
Well, one thing is how I see my own experiments .. like.. "this doesn´t work well when played that way .. back to the drawing board.." , another is the realisation that it can be damned hard work to actually make true experimental music.
Uh.. anyway.. . I am willling to arrange a version of 4'33 for accordion. I am sure it can be done. _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | I am willling to arrange a version of 4'33 for accordion. I am sure it can be done. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
paul e.
Joined: Sep 22, 2003 Posts: 1567 Location: toronto, canada
Audio files: 2
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Kassen wrote: |
Do do have a bit of a problem with Paul's "self-evident" and "natural" rules of music. I personally don't think there are rules that are that universal. |
i agree..i wasn;t saying 'universal'..by 'self evident' i meant 'intuitive' or something like that
and i also agree with you that structure is really not important ...because we can have music that is highly structured or highly unstructured
so something else must be forming the 'grammar' of music if structure is not a neccessary condition
i am suggesting it is emotional or internal or psychological [whatever term you want],
but not scientific/numerical or linguistic/nomenclature etc etc
a shared, intuitive language of sound and rhythm ...
which is hard to measure or discuss on a forum hehe _________________ Spiral Recordings |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
williamsharkey
Joined: Jul 31, 2005 Posts: 61 Location: usa
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I have found a good way to discover some properties of music.
Open a new track, add one instrument ( I use a grand piano ) then open up a piano roll. Make an entire song in the piano roll (or note sequencer, however you refer to it).
As far as music analysis goes, I am not qualified to comment. I have not settled at a conclusion on this topic. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
orczy
Joined: Mar 30, 2005 Posts: 161 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: |
One vital point here is that I am very convinced that it is possible to make personal music that is fairly unique.. and at times very hard to classify.. but still not in any way close to being experimental in the way I understand the term. Listen to the stuff made by Chris Orczy. His music might be improvised, intuitive and seemingly structurally simple and hard to classify. To me it sounds like full and pretty tense compositions.. very mature stuff. but not in any way does it sound to me like experimental music. He clearly knows what he is doing. He understands his own music making processes.
|
Crickey.
I don't really have a process or anything like that. The whole of the HD series was done very intuitivley, like an exploration of myself. The music flowed from within. (Jeez, I'm sounding very new age)
Anyway, when I went to Uni to study composition I had a teacher for one year whose influence is still very strong to me. In a very early on tutorial, he took me outside with a glass of water. He then proceeded to tip the water out onto the concrete. As the water moved out we watched all the different streams go in their different directions. He pointed at one stream and said to watch it closer. He then said that it was exactly how a composition should be. The point was, the water was moving in a very normal direction, due to a gentle slope, but it also created little sidestreams due to stones and dips in the concrete. The point of all this was that the music should sound natural, but also be aware of in how many different ways it could sound natural. Each little sidestream went in different directions from the main stream, yet completely naturally. The flow of water, gravity or what have you.
I don't think i have described this very well, but I am sure you get the point. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
orczy wrote: | I don't think i have described this very well, but I am sure you get the point. |
It still seems to me that you have a systemic approach to how you are making the music for this series. The description of the process might be vague but it is still a defined process. Do you think that you have applied something we might call your own informal rules to how the "water flows"? One might say thta artists like Klaus Schulze is following a similar process.. the vague description might fit.. even though I have no idea if KS himself would subscribe to it. However, I do find your harmonium works to have a very structured feel to them and I don´t think Schulze is quite that much into this kind of structure.( I believe that repetitive patterns often are mistaken for structure.) _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
williamsharkey wrote: | I have found a good way to discover some properties of music.
Open a new track, add one instrument ( I use a grand piano ) then open up a piano roll. Make an entire song in the piano roll (or note sequencer, however you refer to it).
As far as music analysis goes, I am not qualified to comment. I have not settled at a conclusion on this topic. |
Hey! That avatar is very cool! So.. can you make it spin?
This method isn´t a bad bad one at all. By add one.. do you mean.. improvise the pianoi part.. then use this as a starting point for all the other stuff.. added using a notation/event editor? _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
astroid power-up!
Joined: Mar 23, 2004 Posts: 334
G2 patch files: 15
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
my suggestion is to come to em411.com and participate in the "mixit". you download the samples and then use only those to complete a track. there are no other rules, so it's a fun way to add some limitations to what you do. it's the most fun thing i've done for a while-and you're guaranteed to get some feedback.
last time i learned such things as synthesizing tones out of single waveforms, and got a better handle on how to re-amp sounds. _________________ Astroid Power-Up!: "googleplex" available at:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/googleplex |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
orczy
Joined: Mar 30, 2005 Posts: 161 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
elektro80 wrote: | The description of the process might be vague but it is still a defined process. Do you think that you have applied something we might call your own informal rules to how the "water flows"? |
The only real rule I have is to follow my ear. Nothing rigid. To me, notes and chords want to go in certain directions. Different depending on where the piece is heading, but natural all the same. This is where I have a trouble with maths and serial stuff. To me, a lot of the time, the chords seem to be forced to go somewhere they don't sound like the want to go. I think this is to do with voice leading, resolution, and the like. That being said, I really enjoy some serial stuff, Webern in particular, because it still seems natural.
All this being said, it is good to challenge one's natural way of working, yet still being honest to yourself. I don't think there is much point in trying to be original, and going out of your way to do something that no one else has done before. I think this can lead to dishonest music. A better approach is to make the music you want to hear, or even better, make music that is genuinely emotionally affecting to yourself. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
opg
Joined: Mar 29, 2004 Posts: 954 Location: Berkeley, CA, US
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:16 am Post subject:
|
|
|
orczy wrote: | All this being said, it is good to challenge one's natural way of working, yet still being honest to yourself. I don't think there is much point in trying to be original, and going out of your way to do something that no one else has done before. I think this can lead to dishonest music. A better approach is to make the music you want to hear, or even better, make music that is genuinely emotionally affecting to yourself. |
I agree. If you focus too much on creating something that hasn't been done before, you will probably end up frustrating yourself. I only spent a year at a music school, but I really enjoyed learning Bach chorals and chord progressions. I still use those techniques in some of my songs. However, lots of people go through the phase where they get sick of those "overdone" chord progressions (1 - 4 - 5, etc) and just get even more frustrated when they can't figure out another chord progression they like. That's the easiest way to focus too much on one musical aspect.
With more "freeform" electronic music, this isn't so much of a concern, but you can still get lost in focusing too much on finding some "completely original" sound or technique. I find that the best way to feel satisfied with a session of electronic music composition is by being able to capture a basic sound you want to hear (like a fan blowing in a room, or an old telephone sound), or more importantly, going into the process feeling free and not thinking too much. Some of my favorite sounds came from times when I picked a starting sound/instrument and - without overthinking - decided, "I'll add bit-reduction, rezfilter, and a tape delay, and see how it sounds." You're more able to be surprised by the results, which is what I think helps add the emotion you need for a song. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18197 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 212
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Interesting discussion. I guess rodcencko is taking it in and will comment later.
To me, grammar is a very interesting term WRT language, it does imply rules and custom. "Never end a sentence with a preposition." "If the subject is plural, use the plural tense of the verb"; etc. In music, these grammers can be formal or informal. "A V7 resolves most often to the I.", the key of C major doesn't have C#, or Blues has 12 bar phrases and is always in 4/4 time".
In either case, formal or informal, they are very powerful. Try sitting in with a blues band and start making the change back to the tonic on the 15th bar. You are out - fast. For that matter, go to a conservatory and write a pop song with 3 chords - bye bye... Go to a laptop competition and play something without beats You could experiment with blues, house or techno in 3/4 time. You might not make it with the mainstream of these genres, but you would with me.
Some people enjoy experimenting with the grammar. If you get come up with somethng right, it can lead to a completely new type of music. I think of Schoenberg and serial music particularly. I like a lot of this music too, Elektro80. We can discuss serial music in another topic - well worth it. Many experiments don't work. Nobody resonates with them, not even the experementer.
Back to grammer. To me, the key thing is what follows what. As a composer, I pay attention to this. I may not use too many rules and limitations about the sounds and styles I'll use, but I hear everything as a reaction to what went before it, and a prelude to what is to follow. Sometimes, a preposition is a great thing to end a sentence with. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Afro88
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 701 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Audio files: 12
G2 patch files: 79
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
rodcencko, you may be interested in this link: http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/1.htm
It's a very general article written about the shape of a piece's energy. I find this to be a nice framework to work within, and also a good way to think about pieces in general. You may not want 1 main climax but 3 smaller ones. Or you may want an anti-climax, where you start with lots of energy and die off into nothing. Either way, it's completely up to you, and your the one who will have to set the grammar for each particular piece you write. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rodcencko
Joined: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 15 Location: sweden
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
thanks!
that's something I was looking for |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seraph
Editor
Joined: Jun 21, 2003 Posts: 12398 Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
as for every grammar you have to start with few elements when you are learning it. so I would suggest a training starting with something like: EVERY day compose a piece using only three notes for a number of days until you have explored EVERY possible combination (of course having a guide would help and who better than me ) I can't go on because I have signed my own "Non-Disclosure Agreement" _________________ homepage - blog - forum - youtube
Quote: | Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 2922 Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
In the off chance anyone is interested…I have added a thread to the How-tos Developer’s Corner sub forum that is relevant to this thread. _________________ The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Hey Bachus! I really hoped you would visit this thread! _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|