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

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "david turgeon" <david.t@xxxxxxxx>

> > music theory would analyze a microsound piece and musically invalidate
it
> > because the theory could not describe it properly. theoretically,
microsound
> > is in the same category as "silence" or lack of music.
>
> sure, if you live in the 19th century.  there _is_ a theory of silence
> (or did john cage live in vain?)  starting from the futurists, there are
> multiple theories pertaining to electroacoustic music, which microsound
> is in great part related to.  not only that, but as soon as you
> "understand" a piece of music, be it popular or academic, it means you
> have built your own theory around it.

please read the last 20 or so messages of this thread. i don't think you get
my meaning. when i wrote "theoretically..." i wasn't stating any opinion of
mine or using the term to mean "by any theory".. rather, as i have stated on
numerous occasions,  i meant "by traditional music theory standards..."

but OK. in response:
of course meaning can be given to silence. but traditional theory gives no
meaning nor acknowledgement to silence. it only acknowledges silence as a
"rest" or a space between notes. and further, i wrote "microsound is in the
same category as silence or lack of music" .. by that meaning that, duh,
obviously microsound _isn't_ silent and _is_ music. so conventional music
theory is proven wrong/useless/inconsistent once more.

> you're being too narrow here.  microsound music has rules, limitations,
> & so on.  they may have not been written down verbatim yet (as was
> classical music with its sonatas & symphonies, & as is popular music
> with its "production rules" & "hit recipes") but they sure do exist
> through an unspoken consensus which makes pimmon & pita "valid".

sure. so wouldn't it be better to learn microsound rules than conventional
music theory ones? which is the debate.. is music theory useful for
microsound?

btw my reason in saying that there are less limits to microsound style music
wasn't to comment on the "unspoken consensus" of
validation/analysis/criticism etc. it was to say that by definition (there
is a definition of microsound, isn't there? j/k) microsound embraces the
more free-form aspects of experimentalism and in doing so bypasses much of
the need for conventional "reason" or "logic" in tonality. (or even bypasses
tonality itself) .. end result being more experimental, less formal, usually
more interesting to someone like me.

-jonah