Re: [microsound] Re:autechre/richard devine//techniques

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

NOTE:  This is (hopefully) my last post on this topic.  This discussion
has gone way out of the list's topic and original poster's question.  And
I assume partial responsibility for this.



>
> ----- 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?

Actually not entirely.  Theorists usually look at the music that has
already been written.  Not all, though.  However, there's a class of
theorists/composers who create theories as they write music or come up
with some system before composing.  It is mainly a 20th century
fenomenon (someone correct me if I'm wrong).



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

I'll check it out.  What does IDM stand for?  (I assume it's an acronym...)


>
> 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.

Although I don't know IDM and I'm unclear about microsound I have no idea.
 But in the case of modern jazz vs. avant-garde I think it's a
subjective statement.  And I think we should not get into explaining why
and how it is better.


>
> 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.

You contradict your earlier statement here.  Look at the beginning of this
post
"music theory evolves by responding to the music itself."  Yes, some
music strictly follows certain rules, logical rules.  Some rules exist
because such and such thing sounds nice (very subjective - most tonal and
modal theory is based on these principles) other rules exist because such
and such thing is mathematically or syntactically beautiful (rather
abstract but more objective).  But on the other hand, some theories,
principles, systems are constructed in order to create new works.

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

Without a funadamental knowledge of music theory it is difficult to get
into more advanced topics.  So even if you do not use (consciously)
those fundamentals they will serve as a reference to certain abstract
concepts such as  statement, variation, transition etc which are present
(to different degrees) in all types of music.




>
> 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.

no, it's ok.

>
>> > 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.

I agree


>>
>> 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.

I think that this list should not serve as a forum for learning music
theory.  I can't resist answering this simple one, though:

your E dim7 will be interpreted in this context as C# dim7 in the
first inversion.  Still the same function.  Nothing changes, the life goes
on.

I hope that this exercise shows that basic harmony is not detrimental to
anyone involved in music.


>>
>> 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.

or let's just say :  the wheel beyond....

>
>> 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. ;)

It was not intended as an insult.  I appologize if you've taken it this
way.  I simply believe that it is useless to argue or discuss anything
without first understanding the concepts.

I have studied mainly "classical" music.  I have done some jazz
(theory, harmony, improv etc) but for a very short time.  I do have a
basic understanding of jazz but since it interests more-or-less I don't
think my presence on a jazz list will be necessary.  And of course, I am
aware of the fact that "classical" and jazz theories do not approach
certain concepts in the same way.  And that's ok, I have no problem with
that.

>
>> 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" ..

I guess so, but we don't want to get into it, do we?


My Final Statement for this thread:

I have thought a bit about this discussion last night and came to the
conclusion (quick and dirty one) that basic theory is not at all necessary
if one has no interest in learning any of the more advanced concepts of
elements of music.  However, the basic theory serves as a foundation for
more advanced developments.  Event if one does not use it explicitly it is
"a good thing" even if one knows it simply to keep the "historical
perspective."  I believe that a musician should continually expand
his/her horizons (and that implies everything related to music:
theory, history, repertoire - be it standard or modern, etc etc).  I am
aware that there are "musicians" who don't care to know anything about
music.
.... but that's a different story ...

with all due respect

Michal