[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



On 10/01/01 20:13, jonah dempcy said in living color:

> ----- 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.

I didn't gather that from the post of yours to which I replied. I saw no
mention of "time spent learning it" or didn't see anything that seemed to
infer that "face" of the issue. But maybe I missed something... my command
of the English language is still far too inadequate for my liking, for one
thing... Accept my apology if that's what happened.

Of course, if the "time" variable enters the discussion, it will surely
transform it significantly.

> 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.

Sure... it all depends of your aims. And I want to make it clear that I am
not discrediting *at all* a "path" that would focus on experimentation (as
opposed to one that would center on academic training).

However, I think it's bloody important to form the broadest musical
background you can for yourself without regard to the specific musical
activity you're embracing (at the same time as you're learning the ins and
outs of your specific musical activity).

>> 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?

Probably a bad choice of words, you're right.

Let's say music that meets your creative impulses in a more satisfying way.
:)

> how do you say people could have equal
> amounts of creativity? show me an example of this.

Again, I probably exposed my idea poorly. Sorry about that.

What I meant, is, "*all* things being equal" (as is often said in a
scientific approach), a person with the referred-to above musical knowledge
will create music that meets his/her creative impulses in a more satisfying
way than one without that knowledge.

Having more means to achieve one's ideas. It's as simple as that.

> 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?

Again, I did not gather that from your original post. See above. But now, I
can see more clearly your point. So everything's better. :)

Now, in response to the above question you advance:

I think the discussion has slipped a bit... ;) You're now referring to
"songwriting theory"... while what we were discussing earlier was more
fundamental music theory (to be more specific, harmony). I'll concede that
"songwriting theory", a rather narrow field of knowledge, would be of little
use to someone not interested in writing songs. So my answer to your
question would be: "Indeed, that would be mostly pointless."

But, let's return to our earlier subject of discussion, fundamental music
theory (such as harmony). What do you get from learning things like that?
Obviously, an understanding of music built using the principles inherent to
the theory -- and thus, probably, more pleasure when listening to it or
performing it. Also, a good foundation for understanding the music that
started to *break* with those conventions. Already pretty good... But wait,
there's more! The experience you acquire analyzing the music governed by the
Principles *will* translate when you'll consider music that evolves outside
those boundaries.

> and yeah, charlie parker said "learn the rules so you can break them" or
> somesuch 

I believe *lots* of people said things that amount more or less to that
idea. And I throw my complete support to such a statement.

> 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.

I think that the very avoidance of those "traditional rules" is a pretty
strong relationship... (this leads back to "learn the rules so you can break
them")

g.

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west