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

[Michal Seta <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
>>From Jonah Dempcy (thanks -- I decided to send it yet to the list --
> this is a public discussion, isn't it ?) :

Yes, but the subjectmatter gets on everybody'd nerves. 

> 
>>the problem is, the conventions of music theory make it so the 
_music_
>>itself is an external reference system to the "internal"
>>rules/concepts/content of the school of music theory.
> agreed as for the conventions..., that are, however, auto-referential
> like the rules being part of them ... While finding your "music 
theory
> alienates the musician from the music" far too over-generalizing, I
> might just state that such a (pre-established) reference system might
> well serve for inductional classification purposes (or structural
> analysis/generative synthesis) ; fact is, however, that traditional
> music theory (as a convention, auto-referential but not 
auto-justifying)
> can (potentially) well be replaced by any other (coherent,
> (sufficiently) stable, and in itself logical, pre-established) 
reference
> scheme, and inversely also (re-)interpretation (most successfully)
> follows the consequent application of this (set of) recipe(s).

beautifully said.

> 
>>> btw the fact that you can (theoretically)
>>> discuss about "Edim7" vs. "C# dim" chords is already an indication
>>> for some usefulness of this (some) concept ...
>>right, this concept can be used to discuss music theory. not music.
> you discuss music in some abstracted sense ; it's useful (here) for 
you
> know (by learning) what you are referring to and are able to realize
> theory in practice ...
>>just pointing out some inconsistencies...
> Well, I am myself by far no orthodox music theorist, but it's just 
(the
> possibility of) this sort of abstract, yet (here) unequivocal usage 
that
> I am finding something useful in this regard ...

ok.  I've listened to one piece by jonah.  I know that one piece 
should not be representative of anything but that particular one was 
VERY tonal.  I wonder how someone who writes tonal music, decides to 
question the usefulness of basics of tonal theory...


> 
>>hmm, how about microsound "composers"? which was the original
>>question.. "useful" to microsound?
> Well, that's the question ... ; probably not (traditional) music 
theory
> alone ; I personally did much profit from (listening into) other 
areas
> of interest, as digital signal processing, psychoacoustics/music
> perception, noise abatement, sound (quality) design, ethnomusicology 
--
> but also music history ...
> 
> Bl:ah ...

well said.
thanks Alexandra.  Your input has been appreciated.

/MiS