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

[andrei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Greg wrote:

> Ripping off others is simply a form of evolution.

Well emulation is usually a part of an artist's growth, but this discussion started
with this whole thing about Autechre and the problem I see with this is that a lot of
people right now are obsessively emulating this one act instead of trying to absorb
influences from a variety of places and combine those into something new. I don't
know, I just don't get that. I just find it unhealthy and depressing.

> Innovation/originality vs. emulation/ripping-off are terms of reference that
> really only work when applied to rock criticism. They have absolutely no
> place in the world of microsound or systems music.

Really ? Then how come so much "microsound" sounds so samey ? You don't think there
are a bunch of key figures in microsound (Gunter, Ikeda, Oval, Farmers Manual, etc.)
which there's a lot of emulating of going on these days ? I'd call Oval systems music
and there sure is a lot of skipping cds stuff around these days.


jonah dempcy wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michal Seta" <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > And if you don't care about rules governing "traditional" music you need to
> > know them all before you start breaking them through experimentation.
>
> excuse me, "need to" ???

Well, if you're gonna be a composer or an improviser, especially in the more
traditional, non-electronic sense, you certainly need to be very aware of what's gone
on before you in order to have an idea of what hasn't been done. Otherwise you're
likely to just be reinventing the wheel. Actually that's just unheard of in the
classical or jazz worlds. People who obliterated harmony/melody like Schoenberg or
Cage knew the "rules" inside out. It would be laughable to call yourself a composer
without even understanding tonal harmony or calling yourself a jazz musician without
being able to improvise over a blues.

> and, ahem, "know them all" ??? there is a certain set of rules? i'm sorry i
> wasn't aware of that. how about the rules of jazz songwriting/harmony?

There certainly are plenty of rules/conventions about jazz songwriting/harmony. Even
"free" jazz.


Michal Seta wrote:

> Charlie Parker was WAY outside the traditional rules of songwriting/classical
> theory.

OK. First of all, pretty much all he improvised over was derivations on Gershwin's "I
Got Rhythm" and "Embraceable You" or blues. The whole be-bop thing was based around
the ii-V-I progression and secondary dominants which is very basic stuff. And his
lines were basically built around outlining arpeggios and weren't all that different
from the lines Bach wrote.
Second, everyone who knows anything about Parker knows that he was a big fan of
classical music, especially that of Stravinsky and the "Impressionists" who had a big
influence on the harmonic language of be-bop.

Andrei