* jumping shark in this case = going the academic route

Some of you may know I've been working on a book. Well this is sort of tangential to that. Part one of a three part series which begins laying out the underlying theory of my approach to a philosophy of electronic music (alternately 'underlying philosophy of my approach to a theory of electronic music').

http://soundstudiesblog.com/2013/04/29/toward-a-practical-language-for-live-electronic-performance/


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

you're one of the few people that's an automatic read for me here.

Really appreciate that coming from you.
Let me know if you have any thoughts/suggestions/etc.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

i'm gonna let it sink in for a bit.

ill be looking forward to part 2, as both a FlyLo and a Miles Davis fan i enjoyed your piece.

thanks for this. you are def. one of my musical influences for music, and electronic in particular.

welcome back.

> you are def. one of my musical influences
>for music

dan, you're one of my lonesome influences for feeling alone.

a subject that's not disinteresting to me, however...

one thing that struck me is that a lot of electronic performers, including some of the biggest, DO pretty much just stand up on stage. I actually read the Rolling Stone article on Swedish House Mafia's last tour, and it blew my mind how they were talking about how they don't really do anything on stage.

Yeah, that's Swedish House Mafia... but they're high profile and certainly live up to the negative stereotype.

http://deadmau5.tumblr.com/post/25690507284/we-all-hit-play

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

deadmau5 is an idiot

SHM and Avicii come to mind immediately

What is the book going to be about?

I assume it will have something to do with electronic music.

Part 3 - http://soundstudiesblog.com/2013/12/09/live-electronic-performance-theory-and-practice/

And if you missed Part 2 - http://soundstudiesblog.com/2013/08/12/musical-objects-variability/

Look out for the unabridged version in 2014, plus a lot more. Feels good, but man I'm all in on the academy with this shit now.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

peace

>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

I've only read Part 1, but there seems there would be a benefit to formalizing some if not all of the language used to describe some of the musical 'peculiarities' of EDM.

Performance wise, I just don't get EDM, even though I was a big fan during the mid to late 90's emergence of the genre. EDM performances don't seem to have evolved much since then, and I would like to see a live setting match the energy and vitality of some of the studio created releases. If creating a formal language for describing the elements of a live performance would support better performances than it would be worthwhile for DJ's and fans of the genre alike.

There's some great analysis in the 3 parts and some useful distinctions. It's the motivation behind the analysis that seems kinda questionable to me. What is the real purpose here? Is it to legitimize electronic music? That's how it comes off to me. Like a response to people who dismiss the legitimacy of electronic music. I think the analysis you're doing is useful though....I just don't see the point in trying to draw a parallel between jazz and electronic music. I don't think it's really there....and it comes off as an attempt to legitamize the latter by association which is simply unnecessary imo.

One thing that I was thinking while reading....perhaps electronic music is illusive in trying to define because it's not really a genre, it's a means. You can use the same electronic rig to perform music that can be defined in any genre....polka, heavy metal, jazz, etc.

So perhaps using the term 'electronic music' as a genre can be compared to calling The Beatles a '4 piece band' genre. It's not an explanation of what 'kind' of music is being played....it's more a reference to the framework or 'how' the music is being played. When an orchestra performs a Beethoven piece...we don't call it 'orchestra music'. We call it romantic music (genre) played by an orchestra (means).

My personal motivation for this direction stems from attempting to write a historical account from within electronic music, and finding the current theoretical language inadequate for getting at the heart of what electronic music *is*. As such in order to properly give that historic account I needed to rethink the language that I was using. In doing so I discovered a different approach to analyzing music which seemed to work not just for my subject matter but all aspects of music. This series is an account of that language.

>What is the real purpose
>here? Is it to legitimize electronic music?

Legitimacy isn't needed. It already has the critical mass of history to legitimize itself.

>That's how it
>comes off to me. Like a response to people who dismiss the
>legitimacy of electronic music.

It addresses them because I think that's where the frontline of the discussion is, but not necessarily it's most useful application. I believe that is yet to come, and through putting forth the language it allows for that without having to worry about semantical debates on things like 'what is a great chord?'

>I think the analysis you're
>doing is useful though....I just don't see the point in trying
>to draw a parallel between jazz and electronic music.

That was really just personal fun for me, and a means of exemplifying the utility of the language. IMO through the course of the series the heavy analytics indicate that there is an objective complexity to electronic performance which is just as rich as jazz. Everything else is subjective.

>I don't
>think it's really there....and it comes off as an attempt to
>legitamize the latter by association which is simply
>unnecessary imo.

Again I don't think that legitimacy is the issue. Further I don't even analyze jazz in the piece. The presentation of it is really just affording the reader a transparancy about my own biases and value base. We all have them, and for me it's always better to know them upfront than to realize them later. I tried to avoid the direct comparisons, and never actually come to a conclusion which says electronic is anything to jazz. The most i say is that it can learn from jazz in its exploration of variable possibility, but that isn't the point of the piece the point is the exposition of those variable possibilities.

>One thing that I was thinking while reading....perhaps
>electronic music is illusive in trying to define because it's
>not really a genre, it's a means. You can use the same
>electronic rig to perform music that can be defined in any
>genre....polka, heavy metal, jazz, etc.

I think I utilize electronic not as a genre but as a mode of sound manipulation. I lay out a variety of different possible electronic configurations which would be impossible to group under any umbrella genre.

>So perhaps using the term 'electronic music' as a genre can be
>compared to calling The Beatles a '4 piece band' genre. It's
>not an explanation of what 'kind' of music is being
>played....it's more a reference to the framework or 'how' the
>music is being played. When an orchestra performs a Beethoven
>piece...we don't call it 'orchestra music'. We call it
>romantic music (genre) played by an orchestra (means).

Indeed and I think the misperception around what an electronic performance can be is largely related to this. Expectations are built around genres rather than an understanding of the configurations. Hopefully my piece shed some light on how those configurations are arrived at and work to create a live performance.

Incidentally just put this up as a response to critique which is on par with your own - http://avanturb.com/news/?p=1763

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>My personal motivation for this direction stems from
>attempting to write a historical account from within
>electronic music, and finding the current theoretical language
>inadequate for getting at the heart of what electronic music
>*is*.

Yah...that's the part that intrigues me. You're trying to create a language for certain techniques used in music production/performance that haven't really been established yet. A fruitful endeavor imo. For example...somewhere along the long...'sample editing' in hip hop became known as 'chopping'. The creation of that term is worthwhile because the term 'sample editing' covers a wider set of parameters not included in what we mean by 'chopping'. So I'm on board there.


As such in order to properly give that historic account
>I needed to rethink the language that I was using. In doing
>so I discovered a different approach to analyzing music which
>seemed to work not just for my subject matter but all aspects
>of music. This series is an account of that language.

You kinda lose me here. You're a smarter bear than I so let me try to flush this out to make sure I understand correctly. You're suggesting that in making new language to describe new techniques....we can then apply our 'new' language to music from the past? Music made WITHOUT the techniques that we've sought to identify?

To return to the previous example....we need language to describe the way DJ Premier makes music. We come up with the term 'chopping'. Our understanding of what constitutes music production is changed/expanded. And then when we go back and listen to the Modern Jazz Quartet with this new understanding and can hear it in a new way? I can't see that. The Modern jazz Quartet didn't use 'chopping'...so I don't see how the framework we created to account for DJ Premier can be applied to music that doesn't use his technique. I might be misunderstanding you though.

>Indeed and I think the misperception around what an electronic
>performance can be is largely related to this. Expectations
>are built around genres rather than an understanding of the
>configurations. Hopefully my piece shed some light on how
>those configurations are arrived at and work to create a live
>performance.

I haven't revisited the piece....but I think the main point of interest I had in it is perfectly summed up in what you wrote here. "Expectations are built around genres rather than an understanding of the configurations'. And yah...I think you made some headway in that regard. Substantiating and defining those configurations in the hopes of creating a language that allow us to exploit the possibilities.

Around 1998, my friends and I had grown bored of performing as a live band and attempted to amalgamate what we were doing in the studio with our performances. So we made this really complicated set that involved DAT tapes, sample triggers, click tracks and live instruments. I was the de facto manager at the time and it was impossible to promote those shows...also really hard to convince venues that were unfamiliar with us to let us play. It was because there was no language to describe what we were doing.