forms, was herbs&spice

[Renick Bell <the3rd2nd@xxxxxxxxx>]

....So isn't the content relevant? 

Christopher is making a very important point, I think. His examples, and
countless others, point away from the importance of the tool in determining the
musical message. We have seen in the past week the evidence that it is possible
to create very similar messages from a variety of tools. Whether I use a white
noise generator built from spare parts bought at Radio Shack or a white noise
generator built in the form of a max/pd/reactor patch, if I create a
composition that sequences the white noise in .5 second bursts at 5 second
intervals for a period of 5 minutes, the message is very clearly one of
minimalism, repetition, and ordering noise as music, rather than a message that
I am promoting a software developer or an electronics retailer. If I ask the
performer how the piece is created, then I can see a secondary message (though
not a musical one, a political one) about the creation of the piece. This
message is a very important one, no doubt. It's the way in which politics can
effectively function in the musical realm. If I use pd on a linux machine, then
I am supporting open source software. If I buy Max, I am supporting Apple and
Cycling 74. If I go to Radio Shack and create my piece with my home-made
generator and a tape deck, I choosing not to use the computer, or I'm going
with the lowest-budget approach. All the talk of tools is mostly meaningless,
though, in determining the musical message of the piece. The message, I
believe, is created by the content (rhythms, notes, timbres, etc.) and the form
in which the content is structured. The latter is clearly a subject that has
been neglected in discussion of the various genres that comprise microsound
(beyond some limited discussion of minimalism as an approach). This neglect, I
feel, shows in the music. Why are the artists on this list arranging the often
laboriously constructed content in the forms they use? Is it because few people
take the time to do more than filter and process a loop? Is there an underlying
philosophy that is missed in the final piece? When I listen to "The Magic Sound
of Fenn O'Berg," I really don't care so much who is using Audiomulch or Max;
what really interests me is WHY did they insert the piano business there? What
methods were used to know when to play at the loudest or softest? Why were
noisy samples used rather than sine waves? By using glitchy timbres, something
is said. However, if I pitch those glitches and order them in a traditional
canon, or if I use them to mimic Moroccan drum patterns, or if I arrange them
by random call-up from a PD patch, this says a LOT more than that I used an
overdriven VST plug to generate my source glitches. I'd like to hear more on
the list about the forms the composers are using, and what the meaning of those
forms is (not neccesarily in terms of emotional reactions, but creating moments
of stasis, vectors of movement from one section to another, or any other
criteria used in arranging sound). Richard Chartier has something to say in
this realm; I would argue that the form of his pieces is far more important
than the timbres he uses. In Stephan Mathieu's recent Lady Madonna, I hear an
AB structure, where A gives way to B between 2:30 and 2:40. Maybe it's really
just A, A'. Anyway, I'm curious about the reasons for using this structure, and
not A, A', A or any other form. In the rock world, I think significantly more
interesting messages have been constructed when considerations of form have
been made. Don Caballero and Storm and Stress have been pushing this direction,
while the Strokes are essentially just stroking it rather than innovating.
Timbres are being explored, and will continue to be explored without having to
encourage it; however, I think this music which we love could be improved with
more attention to form.

Renick

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com