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

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



jonah dempcy wrote:

>
>
> i wasn't addressing that issue. i was saying that to form a very specific
> musical construct could be detrimental. no matter how varied its uses, music
> theory unfortunately fails to function outside of its mode. and i would say
> that microsound is DEFINITELY outside of the music theory mode!
> (however any examples otherwise are welcomed, would be interesting..)

As music evolves, the music theory evolves as well.  A new theory rarely
precedes a new genre or style or a new musical idea.  Note, however, that those
who stumble across something new usually carry a large baggage of knowledge.
There are exceptions, perhaps.  Listen to Luc Ferrari, Jonty Harrison, Francois
Dhomont, Michael McNabb, Stockhausen, Varese and many many others and you will
hear clearly defined structures, formes and musical statements.  All these
composers applied their knowledge of music theory, history, analysis and
composition in totally different ways.  Yet all of them applied some of the
principles they've learned in their classes, through analysis and research.
And add to that the studies of perception, cognition, acoustics,
psychoacoustics, electronics, computer science, sound synthesis and possibly
other things.

It is worth noting that these people have marked their existence in the history
of music as such.  There is already a mention of some of those composers in
music history textbooks and their names will remain associated with the ideas
they have introduced or expanded.

But don't get me wrong.  If one's goal is to groove and make his/her friends
groove at parties/raves then one SHOULD NOT spend too much time learning about
all that stuff.  By the time one is ready to write anything it will be too
late, and the music will probably be too complex to simply groove to it.

>
>
> i also realize that i'm implying in this argument that by learning something
> you incorporate it into your being to the degree that you emulate it or are
> confined by it.

by not learning you are being confined by what you listen to.  Without the
ability to judge, analyse you will not be able to move beyond the confines of
your personal sonic experience.

>
>
> well this could be true or it could not. but i believe this: when one learns
> something well enough to have skill at it, one will also be blind to things
> outside of the reaches of the implied mode of thought accompanying that
> skill. eg: sight-reading and transcribing/writing music acts as a subtle
> agent of reinforcement for the concepts implicit of music theory: 12-tone
> system, time signatures, and fallacies like precise pitches/rhythms or any
> number of ways to "judge" a piece by its harmonic content. not to mention
> the complete ignorance this system has of any "sound" .. reducing everything
> that is heard only to its pitch! that's as absurd (and impossible) as
> squaring the circle.
>

Don't make mistake.  Learning tonal harmony, modal and tonal counterpoint, 12
tone, is directly useful for composing electronic music.  Hell, it might not be
useful to write anything at all.  However, it serves as an good base in
understanding what music is, how it has evolved and how it is being used and
what else can be done with it.


>
> so anyway, if you take this into account then you will see that either:
> A) music theory is detrimental
> or, if you haven't sufficiently become functional in a music theory mode,
> B) music theory is useless

yup.  Just as language rules are useless if you want write some experimental
poetry, prose or whatever.  Just imagine how easy would it be to express all
these ideas in this thread if you were not confined by the english grammar and
orthography.  Not to mention the vocabulary!  Note that even nn writes correct
english when wanting to convey a point.

>
> by songwriting theory i meant all musical analysis of any sort from the past
> 2000 years.

An I thought I was generalizing in one of my previous posts....
I don't see how you could just discard ALL that has been in music in the past
2000 years.  It is impossible.  I would like to see ONE example of a piece that
has no relation ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION to the legacy of music written for the
past 2000 years (occidental, oriental, african, american and any other).

I know I'm pushing it and that's nbot what you mean but I'm just trying to
illustrate the point.

>
>
> its a very huge field, in fact that is the bulk of music theory.
> fundamentals are something that you learn in an afternoon. music theory is
> something you learn at 4 years of college.

Good luck.  I wish I could have learnt it in 4 years....  But then I do not
consider myself the brightest among theory students.

>
>
> and btw your specifying "harmony" as a category of fundamental music theory
> seems a little inaccurate. harmony has a much larger construct of academic
> thought surrounding it than fundamental things like notes, triads, etc. in
> fact the study of harmony is more thoroughly explored through songwriting
> theory.

Actually, song writing theory (if such thing exists...) is more of applying
your knowledge of theory.

>
>
> but yes fundamental theory deals with harmony, so you see that even basic
> theory implies a much larger musical construct.

I don't quite get it...  Note that harmony is just one of the issues within
music theory.  The knowledge of harmony alone will not contribute in a
significant way to any music.  It will not be enough to make a SUPERFICIAL
analysis of a given piece of music.

>
>
> show me one music theory professor who gets more pleasure from listening to
> music than..
> a dancer
> a musician
> a drug user

How do you measure that pleasure?
Tell me how and I will show you profs who might actually get a greater kick
from listenning.

>
>
> there are many things that can influence the amount of pleasure received
> when listening to music.

exactly.  Among them the knowledge of theory and analysis related isuues.

>
> how so? certainly active "avoidance of traditional rules" will bring said
> rules into the picture, but how about "ignorance of traditional rules" ?

with "ignorance of traditional rules" you will find yourself often reeinventing
the wheel.

>
>
> this is the same thing as saying "having no relationship whatsoever to
> traditional rules" .. and this is what i mean by experimental music.
>

Music, is considered by many a language.  by others: mathematics.  In fact,
depending of the context, it is all of that and more.  Just as there are rules
defining the structure of a phrase in any language and they need to be followed
for people to understand.  However, many authors, poets have taken the liberty
to twist those rules in order to achive some other form of expression.  But the
knowledge of previous rules helped them to remain withing the confines of their
own rules.

BTW, confining yourself within a certain frame of rules, ideas etc is especialy
useful if you want remain coherent in what you are doing.  It does not mean
that you must stay forever within that frame.

And I do believe that a musician who is considering doing music seriously
should develop all aspects of knowledge relating to music.  And not only music.



MiS