Re: [microsound] |-| Re:eR [microsound] autechre/richard devine// techniques ]]

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillaume Grenier" <gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Just because you know how common practice harmony works doesn't mean you
> have to use/apply the same principles in the music you create. But, IMO,
it
> will certainly not be detrimental.

of course no information would be detrimental. but, eg: if i spent 40+ years
learning the nuance of the tabla (as most proficient players do) then i
would certainly have some pretty amazing skills, but would i know the first
thing about microsound?

the point here wasn't about music theory but about time spent learning it.
all too many people take 2 or 4 years of college instead of doing important
things like experimenting, performing, collaborating with other musicians
.... or more specific to microsound, learning about filtering, synthesis,
gear, technical things.

> I'll go further and say that between two persons with equal amounts of
> creativity, equipment, technical proficiencies, etc., the one that possess
> that kind of musical knowledge *will* create better music (even if it is
not
> [consciously] used in the music he/she creates).

uh, better music? what's that? how do you say people could have equal
amounts of creativity? show me an example of this.

i believe the comment wasn't on "music" in general but on a very specific
kind of music, microsound or its related more rhythmical counterparts of
IDM. i was simply saying, why spend time learning songwriting theory if the
music you wish to create challenges the very definition of a song?
and yeah, charlie parker said "learn the rules so you can break them" or
somesuch but i don't think that has to do with experimental music.. in fact
by definition experimental music is outside of the traditional rules of
songwriting/classical theory, it has no relationship to them whatsoever.

-jonah