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

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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michal Seta" <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> As music evolves, the music theory evolves as well.  A new theory rarely
> precedes a new genre or style or a new musical idea.

correct, but i think that the music theory evolves by responding to the
music itself, not vice versa.

and again i am referring to _mainstream_academic_ music theory, not just
"theory" or "understanding" in general.

> 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.

what about if one wants to produce microsound?

> 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.

but it is impossible to not learn! listening to anything involves judgement
and interpretation, personal analysis, etc. and what is this "moving beyond
the confines of a personal sonic experience" ?? isn't everything based on
personal sonic experience?

and i will agree that certainly there are skills and techniques which will
help in the analysis of _some_ music, but these cannot be applied to much
_other_ music. that's been my point: music theory is great when analyzing a
piece of music AS DEFINED BY music theory. it works within the system it has
created, but not elsewhere, for example in analyzing microsound or any other
number of "free-form experimental" styles.

> Don't make mistake.  Learning tonal harmony, modal and tonal counterpoint,
12
> tone, is directly useful for composing electronic music.

i am a fluent jazz pianist and active musician so yeah, i know my shit. and
i also write electronic music as i mentioned. http://www.revolutionvoid.com

but when it comes to microsound, is this useful?

> 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.

well try speaking a different language!

music theory assumes that there is only one language, that it is _the_
language, that it is based on natural (unchangeable) laws of existence, etc.

> > 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 think what i wrote was accurate. i will elaborate though so you can better
understand:

the predominant school of thought that has developed from the ANALYSIS (key
word) of music throughout history.

i wasn't discarding anything musical, rather saying that this method of
analysis has become doomed to repeat itself, forever redundant, slowing down
the musical evolutionary process until it stops.

> 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).

do you mean "music written" as in notated and analyzed according to western
tradition?
or what do you mean?

if you just mean "music played/created/etc" then it's a ridiculous question.
there is no example of a piece that has no relation to historical music
because the piece would be historical itself.

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

which is?

that we depend on academic/structural/scientific categorization of music in
order to enjoy it or create it? (those two things seem to be different
degrees of the same thing btw.. "enjoying" music is just internally
re-creating it)

> > 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.

"actually..." i'm referring to song analysis.

"if such a thing exists" ???
this is a majority of all music theory. and yes some principles are applied,
but these same principles were derived from the music itself. and these
cannot be used for everything. for each new device used the academia must
decide whether to adapt their theory to fit this function (which hasn't been
the case for quite a long time) or sublimate/undermine/categorize its
function to another one.

for example:
we see in the first two bars of the piece "bewitched" a chordal root
movement of C, C#, D, D#. the C is a major and acts as the tonic I, and the
D is a minor and acts as a diatonic minor-ii chord, which makes sense. but
the C# and the D# are diminished. what are they and what function could they
have? they aren't diatonic and they do not theoretically resolve well. in
fact they appear to be random (just as random as an Edim, Gdim or Bbdim in
the case of C# for example, because all these chords are enharmonically the
same). for some reason though, when this is played it sounds good. it is
good. yet there is not a concept in music theory to define this resolution.

this is an example of something music theory doesn't explain well so it must
either adapt its principles to include this function or categorize these
chords as something else.
well, most commonly when one analyzes diminished chords one would look for
the dominant 7th chord that is related to it. in this case we can adapt the
chord progression to essentially be: Cmaj, A7(b9), D-, B7(b9) .. resolving
up to Cmaj/E. so it fits in with traditional harmony and resolution
(1-6-2-5-1). but now where is our precious root movement? C A D B isn't
quite as powerful as C C# D D# ... so do we notate these as slash chords?
but what's the point?

next we ask, what scale does this imply? traditionally the diminished chord
implies a diminished scale, but is that necessary? could not an altered
scale (sometimes called diminished whole-tone) work equally well? which
implication do we choose, the diminished or the 7(b9)?? etc etc. as you can
see it gets very confusing when the harmony of a song does not fit into
specific guidelines as put forth by the practicioners of music theory.

> > 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.

well i wrote that in response to the previous email which stated that
increased knowledge of music theory = increased pleasure. i don't know how
to "measure the pleasure" .. hey thats a good band name!

and my point wasn't that certain things are better, just that the pleasure
one receives from music is not in direct proportion to the amount of
academic knowledge one has about that music.

academia can even fetishize the music to the extent that it is enjoyed for
its academic content and not for something else... (something else being
'that thing' we enjoy about music)

> > 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.

but not anywhere near to the degree that taking drugs and getting laid
would.

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

but what if our goal is not the wheel?
academic music theory implies that the wheel is the only thing one could
invent! ha ha!

> 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.

refer to my previous letters re: the judgement of what is useful and what is
not. certainly all information is useful, but to what degree? blah blah, you
can read the email if you want to.

-jonah