Re:autechre/richard devine//techniques

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

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

> > 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 will say that the term 'music theory' in this context refers not
to theorizing about music, which exists in any number of forms (many of them
very experimental and creative like the examples you gave) but instead to
the classroom experience of taking a 'music theory' course or going to a
college to study 'music theory.'

take this into account and then answer, do you agree with my statement or
not?

> > what is mainstream academic music theory?

a school of thought, body of concepts, systematic approach to analysis and
criticism, a social construct derived from an authoritarian approach to
education with the intent of creating absolute dualities where none exist,
etc.

> what is microsound?
> I have asked this question several times on this list.  Never got an
> answer.

if you have to ask you'll never know.
just kidding, actually it seems to be completely abstract 'free-form' sound.
this definition also has its problems, mainly being that all sound is
abstract and free-form. but even if microsound is technically/really no more
abstract than any other sound, it can be seen that its intent is different.
that some of the sounds created clearly have no relationship to any
traditional notion of instruments, notes, song form etc.

> 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.

no, that would be IDM.
and again check out http://www.revolutionvoid.com for some good IDM.
this is _not_ microsound.

> 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.

i haven't heard the piece so i can't comment on it.
however i have a blanket statement that seems to be true:
all microsound can include "tonal/modal [music] using traditional
instruments"
but not all of said music is microsound.

by this i mean to point out that it would be possible to use any style of
music (however traditional) for the purposes of microsound. eg: like an
abstract painter doing an interpretation of a very
generic/mainstream/traditional piece of architecture.

> Well, if this
> falls within microsound definition then learning theory is definitely
> not detrimental.  Then again, I suppose you can write groovy microsound,
> no?

i would have to hear the piece. but in general IDM stuff like autechre etc
would not be microsound as i understand it.
i should also note that i think most IDM is of much higher quality than most
microsound, just like i think most modern jazz is better than most
avant-garde. _BUT_ some microsound (and some avant-garde) is completely
amazing, and that's why i enjoy these genres. because they have the capacity
for so much more, because they have the ability to go so much further in any
given exaggeration or flourish.

> 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).

and what is this logic?
this logic has been placed there by the theory itself. it does not exist
outside of the music theory, or rather inside of the music.

> > but when it comes to microsound, is this useful?
>
> yup

care to elaborate?


> > 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...

was responding to the metaphor of language: if you can't speak a language
how do you express ideas/content etc? and i was saying that, well, yeah
that's true, if you want to speak a certain language. but this language has
no relationship to the ideas/content other than it is a convenient way to
express them. and this convenience is the reason that music theory and the
school of traditional musical thought is so prominent and pervasive. (and
reinforcing of said assumptions)


> > the predominant school of thought that has developed from the ANALYSIS
> >(key word) of music throughout history.
>
> there are several schools of thought, actually...

are there several _predominant_ schools of thought? ;)

> > 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'm late for a show (mccoy tyner tonight at jazz alley) but i think i have
shown enough evidence of this in prior emails. if you read those and still
don't understand what i'm talking about then i'll reiterate.

> > 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.

point being?

this is absurd.

> > 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?

not really.
how about if i wrote a Edim7 chord (enharmonically the same as the C# dim)??
this would make it theoretically 'incorrect' but for all practical (heard)
purposes correct.

> > 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.

new ways of exaggerrating the wheel. bigger, better wheels. wheels within
wheels.

> 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.

ho ho, an insult? why don't you join the justjazz mailing list and we can
seriously duke it out in a music theory forum. ;)

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

so something is useful because it is used?
well i guess so, but isn't that kind of the existential
everything-is-equal-anyway argument? in the sense that this could be used to
say how _ANYTHING_ is "necessary" ..

-jonah