Re: [microsound] conventional noise?

[jonas olesen <jonasus2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

just a short comment:

many of the discussions on this list, and in related
litterautre mention the shift from "conventional"
musical parameters like rhythm and melody into pure
timre and free time as it appears in modern music, as
this was something positive in itself, but this seems
to be a rahter outdated use of the term "conventional"

rhythm and melody may be conventional in an old
classical discourse, but in a
noise/mircosound/experimental discourse theese terms
does not apply - maybe within the old avantgarde one
could say: "the old conventions are broken up into
something new" but as we all know, a lot of modern
composers dosent "experiment" in that sense, but uses
a musical language of " broken conventions" like cd's
skipping or granular abstractions - meaning they
relate their composition to the general discourse of
electronic and experimental music - for me " a
conventional audioprocessing using fx a bitreduction
plug-in" are just as conventional as rhythm and melody
were in the old classical/mainstream discourse - isent
the use of the roland tb-303 extremely "conventional"
in technomusic? isent the use of particular software
and production techniques extremely "conventional" in
microsound music?

my simple thesis is that modern music seems to make up
new conventions, and this seems to be a historical
mechanism, rather than a conscious intent from some
composers. but still the use of the term
"conventional" infiltrates the terminology surrounding
new music, so that one still can read record rewiews
that says "this composer creates something really new
and exiting, he does not use conventional musical
parameters" 
were it should say "this composer uses the wellknown
conventions of new music, and there is nothing new or
unconventioal about that" - then it comes down to: is
this music good music or bad? what is it saying?  for
me this has absolutely nothing to do with the use,
misuse or not-use of any musical conventions. 

--- Ian Andrews <i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Hello Microsound,
> >
> >Perhaps those on this list with an interest in
> "noise" can explain the
> >form to me.
> >
> >I have studied music is all its forms, from the
> beginnings of western
> >music to the deterioration of sound art into
> concept - an yet, i still
> >have no solid appreciation for the modern pandemic
> of "noise".  I post
> >this here because I am actively looking for a
> persuasive argument which
> >would sway my extreme aversion to this form of
> modern music. Let the
> >diatribe begin.
> 
> Much has beeen written on the subject of noise, cf
> Atalli, R. Murray
> Schaffer, etc. But to keep it simple, and answer
> what I think your question
> is, viz: how can noise be music? I will say this.
> There is no music that
> does not have some degree of noise in it.  I
> classical musical terms this
> is known as timbre.  If music did not have any
> elements of noise it would
> consist of a series of pure tones (sinewaves).  With
> noise comes harmonics
> which give the sound a certain character.
> 
> Traditional Western (classical) music has been
> largely dominated by melody.
> In the early 20th century cerain composers, like
> Rusolo and Varese, moved
> away from melody to concentrate on timbre and (so
> called) non-musical
> sounds (or noise).  But you must know this already.
> 
> Perhaps the reason that "we" ("noisemakers") have a
> fascination for certain
> timbres, timbres that you would consider as
> unmusical noise, and continue
> to produce these sounds at the expense of
> conventional melody and harmony
> (and even rhythm), is because this area of
> exploration offers so many
> possibilities, possibilities which no longer present
> themselves in the
> directions of melody, harmony and rhythm.
> 
> However, i don't think that this simple statement,
> or in fact any body of
> theory on the subject, has much chance of swaying
> your extreme aversion to
> "this form of music" (whatever that may be).  Such
> aversions are judgements
> of taste, and there is no such thing as a
> universally valid  argument for
> "what is beautiful?" in aesthetics.  Appreciation
> for any form of art is
> culturally conditioned and must (to some extent) be
> learned.  So should you
> bother with it? I don't know.  I paricularly hate
> grunge music. I'm sure I
> could find some redeemable qualities in it if I
> could be bothered listening
> to a great deal of it and immersed myself in the
> culture. But instead I
> just decide that its not for me. I don't need to ask
> it's practicioners for
> a persuasive and unified theory.  Also, Wagner gives
> me a headache.
> >
>  How can I as a listener, as an
> >audience, as a musician, tell if the producer of
> said noise understands
> >what they are doing - or if the discovery of the
> noises that their
> >electronic and software circuits can produce has
> merely triggered the
> >most base of adolescent fascinations - i do it
> because i can - aka -
> >why not?.
> 
> Strangely enough, I think that this is a valid
> question. I think it comes
> down to identifying what is called "just doing the
> bleeding obvious."
> Unfortunately a great many people do just this.  But
> it may come as a
> surprise to you David that most of us can tell the
> difference.
> 
> >
> >Need I sit through 30 minutes of a gurgling sound
> mixed with shrill
> >piercing waveform in order to learn that the artist
> was utterly
> >obsessed with the process of this sound's
> inception. Does it ultimately
> >matter to the audience if what s/he produced was
> the result of a
> >sonified neural network? Must I read a 5 page essay
> or attend a lecture
> >to understand what I am listening to? Maybe so.
> 
> This is also a quite valid question and one which
> has been debated at
> length on this list.  In other words, what is the
> point of a strong
> interesting concept (in terms of process), if the
> final result is weak and
> uninteresting?  I come across a lot of art/music
> that has this problem.
> The theoretical elaboration of the process can add a
> valuable dimension to
> the work, but if the work itself is boring, then,
> IMHO, nothing can save it.
> 
> 
> >I am obviously missing the point. I cannot even
> begin to give you the
> >names of the artisans whose work I am speaking of,
> so those who know,
> >please let me know who I am talking about.
> 
> Please can someone let David know who he is talking
> about?  I'm afraid I can't.
> >
> >So here are my questions about the form in a
> nutshell:
> >1. What is "noise" communicating and to what
> audience?
> 
> In some extreme cases it is communicating (and
> delimiting) the boundaries
> of music - raising the question: what can be
> considered music?  In others
> its more a case of timbre (noise as effect).  In
> others its a case of
> foregrounding background media artifacts (in a
> formalist sense).
> 
> >2. Why?
> 
> Same reason as with any type of music or art: one
> thing leads to another,
> then to another.  Its a process of exploration
> rather than an unchanging
> tradition.
> 
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree