[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] |-| Re:eR [microsound] autechre/richard devine// techniques ]]
- To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [microsound] |-| Re:eR [microsound] autechre/richard devine// techniques ]]
- From: Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:45:03 -0500
jonah dempcy wrote:
>
>
> 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 don't care if it's in college, university, private tutor, magazines, books,
you say yourself that you need to elarn these things. And if you know about
filtering and synthesis and gear there's a long way to making music. Be it
songs or otherwise.
>
>
>
> 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?
How so?
What is the very definition of song?
And how is your music challenging it?
>
> 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.
>
Charlie Parker was WAY outside the traditional rules of songwriting/classical
theory. Just because many sax players today learn Perker's licks and ALL jazz
players study his solos doesn't mean that he wasn't "experimental".
Historical perspective.
MiS