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

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

yes this is very good:

From: "Jeremy Tolsma" <ccws@xxxxxxxx>
> I would disagree with that for the reasons stated above, I think there may
> be two main forms of experimental music.. 'progressive' (ie taking
standard
> techniques and expanding or subverting them), and 'free-form', which
tosses
> all previously pioneered technique out the window and aims to forge
> something entirely unique.

so do you think that skills in the progressive form could be used for the
purposes of the free-form? i would say that it is impossible, that these
categories are mutually exclusive. and by the degree the one exists, the
other does not.

note that i say they are mutually exclusive but don't want to create a
yes/no situation as far as analyzing experimental music. because, is it
really possible to attain free-form experimentalism at all? would not all
experimentalism be dictated in part by previously pioneered technique, etc.
so instead of going down that road, i think its safe to acknowledge the
relationship of the two forms and their degrees of presence in a musical
endeavor.

so this is the point. i ask "what determines the degree?"

do you think proficiency in previously pioneered technique would be
detrimental to free-form experimentalism? and to reiterate, either it would
be detrimental or have no effect on it, so either way a history in music
theory will _not_ help you be a good microsound musician. repeat: do not
study music if you to be a microsound musician. ;)

-jonah