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

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> ----- 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.

That depends.

Bartok wrote his music, then he went back to look at it and derived his
logic.

Schöenberg did the opposite with the serial theory.


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

what is mainstream academic music theory?

>
>> 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?

what is microsound?
I have asked this question several times on this list.  Never got an
answer.
Judgin from the various pieces I see discussed here and provided by
various members it is simply a bag of stuff that doesn't fit anywere else
on the first glance or the creator doesn't want to subscribe to the
techno/rave/house/whatever/jungle genre.  Granted, I have heard some
interesting pieces through this list.  And if I recall well, by following
one of the links provided here I happened to hear a song which was
definitely tonal/modal using traditional instruments.  Well, if this
falls within microsound definition then learning theory is definitely
not detrimental.  Then again, I suppose you can write groovy microsound,
no?  Or am I missing the point.


>
> 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?

yes.

>
> 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.

No!  The study of theory (not basic but advanced) gives you the skill
to objectively look at a piece of music and FIND OUT the logic within it
(if there is one).


>
>> 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

>

> 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.

I don't follow...


>
> 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.

there are several schools of thought, actually...

>
> 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.

explain.

>
>> 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.

there's no example.

>
>> 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)

No.  The point is the knowledge that gives you a better perspective not
only on what others are doing but on what you do yourself.



> 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.

For the past 200 years, or so, the vii dim was used as a substitute of
a dominant.  Your C# dim is a vii in the scale of D.  Dominant
substitution.  Satisfied?

>
> 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.

look above.

> 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.

Look above.


>
> 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!

for some reason most "academic" composers are trying to achieve things not
yet done/invented.

I think that the basic knowledge of music theory (actually, let's say a
bit more advanced knowledge) is not detrimental to any music.  Even if you
do not use it in your music you will definitely be able to formulate
better arguments agains it.

>
>> 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.

To the degree that is necessary.  And necessity come with usage.

MiS