Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby The Lesson topic #2831402

Subject: ""I could argue that the keyboard is not actually an instrument"" Previous topic | Next topic
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 02:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
""I could argue that the keyboard is not actually an instrument""


  

          

I'm back on my theory shit. Get real technical in this part 2 of my three part series presenting a theory for live electronic performance;

http://soundstudiesblog.com/2013/08/12/musical-objects-variability/

If you missed part 1 it's over here:
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
What's your definition of "jazz?"
Aug 12th 2013
1
hmmmm
Aug 12th 2013
2
      On what scale is it the "peak?"
Aug 12th 2013
4
           well... I'm trying to challenge that aren't I?
Aug 12th 2013
5
                Okay, you're ducking the question.
Aug 12th 2013
6
                     I'm using the scale of variability
Aug 12th 2013
10
                          I don't know what a "scale of variability" is.
Aug 12th 2013
12
                               you're skipping ahead!! LOL!
Aug 12th 2013
13
                                    I think your train of thought is off track.
Aug 13th 2013
14
                                         you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
15
                                              RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
16
                                                   RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
17
                                                        RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
18
                                                             RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
19
                                                                  RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol
Aug 13th 2013
21
                                                                       have you read both pieces yet though?
Aug 13th 2013
22
will read later, but I've argued before here that if you don't consider
Aug 12th 2013
3
Seems way to restrictive to me.
Aug 12th 2013
7
There was quite a debate about the electric guitar.
Aug 12th 2013
8
because it is, I'm guessing that's LD's way of refuting the point
Aug 12th 2013
9
I'm saying that
Aug 13th 2013
23
less concrete definitions; more logical absurdities
Aug 12th 2013
11
      no energy to read that whopper today
Aug 13th 2013
20

Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 02:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "What's your definition of "jazz?""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 03:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "hmmmm"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

The culmination of western music exemplified by the assimilation of high form composition with folk-esque conversation found through in the moment improvisation around the head.

But it changes. I don't want to define it too strong in this context other than being the peak of western musical form to date otherwise the real focus of this work gets lost.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 03:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "On what scale is it the "peak?""
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

>being the peak of western musical form

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 03:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "well... I'm trying to challenge that aren't I?"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

a classicist will tell you classical
a rockist will tell you rock
a popist will tell you pop
a jazzist will tell you jazz

it all seems subjective but in my effort to prove that electronic goes beyond them all i think i'll also stumble upon the language for discerning their accomplishments.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 03:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "Okay, you're ducking the question."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

>a classicist will tell you classical
>a rockist will tell you rock
>a popist will tell you pop
>a jazzist will tell you jazz

These are all fairly juvenile, incoherent positions, if what these imaginary people mean is that one is somehow "better" than another, on some nebulous, linear scale.

>it all seems subjective

And you need to stop there. Unless you're adopting some sort of Platonic/"music of the spheres" framework, a theory of ideal forms, which I'll be delighted to argue against, then it all IS subjective.

>but in my effort to prove that
>electronic goes beyond them all

Again, on what scale? Is there some state of perfection you're judging these forms against?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 06:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "I'm using the scale of variability"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

>Again, on what scale? Is there some state of perfection you're
>judging these forms against?

But I'm not thinking of it as hierarchical but rather continuations. Jazz was a culmination of what had come before it. There have been deconstructions from that point. Arguably jazz is a reconstruction to the blues. R&B and soul are deconstructions from the blues. Hip-hop is a deconstruction from r&b/soul. All of these built upon foundations previously laid and created new things but not things that existed outside of what had been previously construction, the depth of that form expressed through jazz.

Electronic is a reconstruction of all of western musical history which allows for the first push forward from the foundational construction since jazz. The way at arriving at that possibility is via a language that bridges the two palates.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 06:57 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "I don't know what a "scale of variability" is."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

I've not heard that phrase before.

>But I'm not thinking of it as hierarchical but rather
>continuations. Jazz was a culmination of what had come before
>it. There have been deconstructions from that point. Arguably
>jazz is a reconstruction to the blues. R&B and soul are
>deconstructions from the blues. Hip-hop is a deconstruction
>from r&b/soul. All of these built upon foundations previously
>laid and created new things but not things that existed
>outside of what had been previously construction, the depth of
>that form expressed through jazz.

It isn't clear what you mean by "reconstruction" and "deconstruction" here. You seem to be using them interchangeably.

>Electronic is a reconstruction of all of western musical
>history which allows for the first push forward from the
>foundational construction since jazz. The way at arriving at
>that possibility is via a language that bridges the two
>palates.

"Foundational construction." "Palates." I'm thinking that if you simplified your language, your point would be a lot clearer.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 07:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "you're skipping ahead!! LOL!"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

>I've not heard that phrase before.

You put in 'scale', variability is the language. It says that music is the variable manipulation of sound frequencies as an expressive art. With 'all of sound' as potentially manipulated, identified as variable or the varied nature of sound, historically human beings have grown in the levels of variability. Electronic takes that a step further.

>It isn't clear what you mean by "reconstruction" and
>"deconstruction" here. You seem to be using them
>interchangeably.

Intentionally so yet to remain distinctly different. As they are similar but not 'the same'. Deconstruction is the taking apart of the elements so as to only use parts in the construction of something other. Reconstruction is the taking apart of a thing to reshape it into the something other.

>"Foundational construction." "Palates." I'm thinking that if
>you simplified your language, your point would be a lot
>clearer.

It's a later point, which isn't necessarily going to be even touched on in this series. But yeah pulled out as two phrases it seems complicated and I don't know that it's not. Further I don't know that it can not be at this juncture. It's a later point which the language of variability will help elucidate.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 10:07 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "I think your train of thought is off track."
In response to Reply # 13


  

          

>It says that
>music is the variable manipulation of sound frequencies as an
>expressive art.

And which fulfills our expectations of "music." This is not a small point.

>With 'all of sound' as potentially
>manipulated, identified as variable or the varied nature of
>sound, historically human beings have grown in the levels of
>variability.

Eh...

>Electronic takes that a step further.

You're claiming that electronic music has superseded all older forms of music, then. Like jazz is the "culmination" of all before it (which I also think is wrong), electronic is, because of the near-infinite range of sounds available, also a culmination.

So how is this different than just "more = better?"

>Deconstruction is the taking
>apart of the elements so as to only use parts in the
>construction of something other. Reconstruction is the taking
>apart of a thing to reshape it into the something other.

I think the relationships between various forms of music are much more complex and nuanced than what you described before, and that reduction to these two categories is probably not that useful a way of thinking about them.

>It's a later point, which isn't necessarily going to be even
>touched on in this series. But yeah pulled out as two phrases
>it seems complicated and I don't know that it's not. Further
>I don't know that it can not be at this juncture. It's a later
>point which the language of variability will help elucidate.

I'd do some reading in general critical theory, and work with that language, especially in aesthetics and genre.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 10:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

>>It says that
>>music is the variable manipulation of sound frequencies as
>an
>>expressive art.
>
>And which fulfills our expectations of "music." This is not a
>small point.

Actually this is categorically false, because there is no universal 'our' for whom all 'expectations' of 'music' can be defined. The open nature of the definition is intentional so as not to limit the possibilities. Atonality was previously outside of 'our' 'expectations' of 'music'. Thank goodness that didn't hold artists back.

>>With 'all of sound' as potentially
>>manipulated, identified as variable or the varied nature of
>>sound, historically human beings have grown in the levels of
>>variability.
>
>Eh...

From hey when i change the shape of my mouth it produces sounds, to hmmmm i could simulate a sound wave digitally send it via wireless technology to a system which converts that digital source to the wave which vibrates the speaker.... it's a long history.

>>Electronic takes that a step further.
>
>You're claiming that electronic music has superseded all older
>forms of music, then.

That's a hierarchical. I say the step further is a continuation.

>Like jazz is the "culmination" of all
>before it (which I also think is wrong), electronic is,
>because of the near-infinite range of sounds available, also a
>culmination.

Is it possible to culminate at near infinity?

>So how is this different than just "more = better?"

Because it's continuation not hierarchy. The misnomer of the hierarchical view is that it doesn't fold back. That what can be explored vis a vis electronic by example doesn't filter back into the original traditions and help them move forward too. Jazz players listening to what can be done electronically, rethinking breath and taking circular breathing techniques to the max as an example. No electronic instrument can do that, but at the same time the artists may have never been pushed that far without the ability to play with an elelctronic instrument that takes them there. Ya dig?

>I think the relationships between various forms of music are
>much more complex and nuanced than what you described before,
>and that reduction to these two categories is probably not
>that useful a way of thinking about them.

But this isn't a discussion of those nuances. Right now I haven't even gotten to form, style and genre in the discussion. I raised it at the onset to show where I'm coming from personally, but I haven't actually made any points to that at this stage. I'm starting with a language. Showing how that language works for discussing tradition and the newer forms. From there I'll get to how to use that language as a bridge. But first things first.

>I'd do some reading in general critical theory, and work with
>that language, especially in aesthetics and genre.

But you haven't even gotten into the language based on that comment, because it's not about aesthetics or genre. You're worried about things that have little to do with what I'm presenting right now. Seriously, check the part 1 and the part 2 in the og links. Tell me what you think specifically of those things, not just what stood out in the first few paragraphs.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 10:53 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

>Actually this is categorically false, because there is no
>universal 'our' for whom all 'expectations' of 'music' can be
>defined. The open nature of the definition is intentional so
>as not to limit the possibilities. Atonality was previously
>outside of 'our' 'expectations' of 'music'. Thank goodness
>that didn't hold artists back.

The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any less important in the definition of form. So, what's false?

>From hey when i change the shape of my mouth it produces
>sounds, to hmmmm i could simulate a sound wave digitally send
>it via wireless technology to a system which converts that
>digital source to the wave which vibrates the speaker.... it's
>a long history.

Er...which part? Digitally generated sound has been around precisely as long as digital technology. It's not that long a history at all, and it's very well documented. But your point is that the "palette" (I think the word you meant earlier) is bigger now than ever before.



>That's a hierarchical. I say the step further is a
>continuation.

I believe you introduced the hierarchy when you used the word "peak," right?

>Because it's continuation not hierarchy. The misnomer of the
>hierarchical view is that it doesn't fold back. That what can
>be explored vis a vis electronic by example doesn't filter
>back into the original traditions and help them move forward
>too. Jazz players listening to what can be done
>electronically, rethinking breath and taking circular
>breathing techniques to the max as an example. No electronic
>instrument can do that, but at the same time the artists may
>have never been pushed that far without the ability to play
>with an elelctronic instrument that takes them there. Ya
>dig?

Except that circular breathing, to use your example, is an ancient technique, used by wind players all over the world. As for taking it to the max, I read in wikipedia that "In 1997, a Guinness World Record was set for longest held musical note. Kenny G used circular breathing to sustain an E-flat on a saxophone for 45 minutes and 47 seconds. In February 2000, Vann Burchfield set a new Guinness world record for circular breathing, holding one continuous note for 47 minutes, 6 seconds, surpassing Kenny G’s record."

Which raises the problem of diminishing returns. I don't particularly care to hear a 47-minute held note, but it's interesting to know that it can be done. But maybe you're thinking more musically: what sort of circular breathing territory will electronic music reveal that hasn't already been explored?

>>I think the relationships between various forms of music are
>>much more complex and nuanced than what you described
>before,
>>and that reduction to these two categories is probably not
>>that useful a way of thinking about them.

>But this isn't a discussion of those nuances. Right now I
>haven't even gotten to form, style and genre in the
>discussion. I raised it at the onset to show where I'm coming
>from personally, but I haven't actually made any points to
>that at this stage. I'm starting with a language. Showing
>how that language works for discussing tradition and the newer
>forms. From there I'll get to how to use that language as a
>bridge. But first things first.
>
>>I'd do some reading in general critical theory, and work
>with
>>that language, especially in aesthetics and genre.
>
>But you haven't even gotten into the language based on that
>comment, because it's not about aesthetics or genre. You're
>worried about things that have little to do with what I'm
>presenting right now. Seriously, check the part 1 and the
>part 2 in the og links. Tell me what you think specifically
>of those things, not just what stood out in the first few
>paragraphs.

Then why did you spend those first few paragraphs discussing aesthetics and genre?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 11:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

>The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations
>change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any
>less important in the definition of form. So, what's false?

By your rationale there was something wrong with atonality before it was an accepted norm. That is categorically false. There was nothing wrong with atonality prior, it was the expectations or accepted norm that were wrong. So there was always music in atonality, there was just a norm defined to exclude it. Opening up the definitions so that nothing which could potentially be later understood in the musical context gets excluded is the point.

>Er...which part? Digitally generated sound has been around
>precisely as long as digital technology. It's not that long a
>history at all, and it's very well documented.

The time from then back to the first person to sing isn't a long time? Yeah okay.

>But your point
>is that the "palette" (I think the word you meant earlier) is
>bigger now than ever before.

Spell checks a bitch. But yes. We have a broader understanding of the variables that can be manipulated to produce expressive sounds than we did when the first human figured out how to sing.

>>That's a hierarchical. I say the step further is a
>>continuation.
>
>I believe you introduced the hierarchy when you used the word
>"peak," right?

Peak doesn't have to mean best.

>Except that circular breathing, to use your example, is an
>ancient technique, used by wind players all over the world. As
>for taking it to the max, I read in wikipedia that "In 1997, a
>Guinness World Record was set for longest held musical note.
>Kenny G used circular breathing to sustain an E-flat on a
>saxophone for 45 minutes and 47 seconds. In February 2000,
>Vann Burchfield set a new Guinness world record for circular
>breathing, holding one continuous note for 47 minutes, 6
>seconds, surpassing Kenny G’s record."
>
>Which raises the problem of diminishing returns. I don't
>particularly care to hear a 47-minute held note, but it's
>interesting to know that it can be done. But maybe you're
>thinking more musically: what sort of circular breathing
>territory will electronic music reveal that hasn't already
>been explored?

But see how your perspective shaped the whole notion. For you circular breathing is just about how long they can hold that note. But what if the techniques explored weren't in the how long, but in the what else can be done while? That's the inspiration which could come from electronic while not coming from anything else.

>Then why did you spend those first few paragraphs discussing
>aesthetics and genre?

To piss of folk like you obviously!!


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 11:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 17
Tue Aug-13-13 11:56 AM by Buck

  

          

>>The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations
>>change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any
>>less important in the definition of form. So, what's false?
>
>By your rationale there was something wrong with atonality
>before it was an accepted norm.

I never wrote that. Never wrote anything like that.

>The time from then back to the first person to sing isn't a
>long time? Yeah okay.

You didn't specify. I was talking exclusively about digitally generated music. Address what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

>>But your point
>>is that the "palette" (I think the word you meant earlier)
>is
>>bigger now than ever before.
>
>Spell checks a bitch. But yes. We have a broader
>understanding of the variables that can be manipulated to
>produce expressive sounds than we did when the first human
>figured out how to sing.

What are those variables again?

>Peak doesn't have to mean best.

LOL...well, WTF does it mean then?

>>Except that circular breathing, to use your example, is an
>>ancient technique, used by wind players all over the world.
>As
>>for taking it to the max, I read in wikipedia that "In 1997,
>a
>>Guinness World Record was set for longest held musical note.
>>Kenny G used circular breathing to sustain an E-flat on a
>>saxophone for 45 minutes and 47 seconds. In February 2000,
>>Vann Burchfield set a new Guinness world record for circular
>>breathing, holding one continuous note for 47 minutes, 6
>>seconds, surpassing Kenny G’s record."
>>
>>Which raises the problem of diminishing returns. I don't
>>particularly care to hear a 47-minute held note, but it's
>>interesting to know that it can be done. But maybe you're
>>thinking more musically: what sort of circular breathing
>>territory will electronic music reveal that hasn't already
>>been explored?
>
>But see how your perspective shaped the whole notion. For you
>circular breathing is just about how long they can hold that
>note.

Actually, no. I mean hour-long free-form improvisations. I mean Evan Parker and Anthony Braxton. I mean a number of classical compositions. I mean all the things that have already been done. So no. I asked what YOU mean.

>But what if the techniques explored weren't in the how
>long, but in the what else can be done while?

Such as?

>That's the
>inspiration which could come from electronic while not coming
>from anything else.

Such as?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 12:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

>>>The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations
>>>change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any
>>>less important in the definition of form. So, what's false?
>>
>>By your rationale there was something wrong with atonality
>>before it was an accepted norm.
>
>I never wrote that. Never wrote anything like that.

You said expectations change, implying that prior expectations weren't wrong. In other words before atonality became accepted it was not music because it did not meet 'our' 'expectations' of 'music'.

>>The time from then back to the first person to sing isn't a
>>long time? Yeah okay.
>
>You didn't specify. I was talking exclusively about digitally
>generated music. Address what I wrote, not what you wish I
>wrote.

Actually I did see:

>From <a hey when i change the shape of my mouth it produces
>sounds>, to <b hmmmm i could simulate a sound wave digitally send
>it via wireless technology to a system which converts that
>digital source to the wave which vibrates the speaker>.... it's
>a long history.

>What are those variables again?

Read the piece.

>>Peak doesn't have to mean best.
>
>LOL...well, WTF does it mean then?

The peak is the summit, the highest point, the farthest a thing can go. In a musical context, the farthest that music can be pushed, may not meet 'our' 'expectations' of 'music' to be qualified as the best. It would still be the peak though.

>>>Except that circular breathing, to use your example, is an
>>>ancient technique, used by wind players all over the world.
>>As
>>>for taking it to the max, I read in wikipedia that "In
>1997,
>>a
>>>Guinness World Record was set for longest held musical
>note.
>>>Kenny G used circular breathing to sustain an E-flat on a
>>>saxophone for 45 minutes and 47 seconds. In February 2000,
>>>Vann Burchfield set a new Guinness world record for
>circular
>>>breathing, holding one continuous note for 47 minutes, 6
>>>seconds, surpassing Kenny G’s record."
>>>
>>>Which raises the problem of diminishing returns. I don't
>>>particularly care to hear a 47-minute held note, but it's
>>>interesting to know that it can be done. But maybe you're
>>>thinking more musically: what sort of circular breathing
>>>territory will electronic music reveal that hasn't already
>>>been explored?
>>
>>But see how your perspective shaped the whole notion. For
>you
>>circular breathing is just about how long they can hold that
>>note.
>
>Actually, no. I mean hour-long free-form improvisations. I
>mean Evan Parker and Anthony Braxton. I mean a number of
>classical compositions. I mean all the things that have
>already been done.

Then why start with a swipe on Kenny G? Why emphasize the 47-minute held note?

>So no. I asked what YOU mean.

Said

>>But what if the techniques explored weren't in the how
>>long, but in the what else can be done while?
>
>Such as?

The particular example I'm thinking of is a solo tenor performance in which while a note is held while playing a percussive drum and bass like rhythm that produces an improvised melody.

Specifically the playing of dnb parts rhythmically on the sax while circular breathing.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                        
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 12:48 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: you can't skip ahead and then say my thought is off track... lol"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

>>>>The word "previously" is the key. Obviously expectations
>>>>change. That doesn't make them less real, does it? Nor any
>>>>less important in the definition of form. So, what's
>false?
>>>
>>>By your rationale there was something wrong with atonality
>>>before it was an accepted norm.
>>
>>I never wrote that. Never wrote anything like that.
>
>You said expectations change, implying that prior expectations
>weren't wrong.

First, I think you meant "were wrong." Second, I implied nothing. Expectations change. Period. I've written NOTHING about right and wrong. That's all you.

>In other words before atonality became
>accepted it was not music because it did not meet 'our'
>'expectations' of 'music'.

Again, you've got to get some reading done. When I use the terms "genre" and "expectations" I have very precise theoretical meanings in mind.

>>>The time from then back to the first person to sing isn't a
>>>long time? Yeah okay.
>>
>>You didn't specify. I was talking exclusively about
>digitally
>>generated music. Address what I wrote, not what you wish I
>>wrote.
>
>Actually I did see:

What?

>>>Peak doesn't have to mean best.
>>
>>LOL...well, WTF does it mean then?
>
>The peak is the summit, the highest point, the farthest a
>thing can go.

Well, it's certainly arrogant to suggest that whatever sort of electronic sounds you have in mind are somehow the "-est" of anything at all. Arrogant, and ironically short-sighted.

>Then why start with a swipe on Kenny G? Why emphasize the
>47-minute held note?

LOL @ "emphasize." You wrote "to the max." Well, that's one example of "max." I see you STILL haven't addressed any existing explorations of the technique, despite my prompting you with actual examples.

>>So no. I asked what YOU mean.
>
>Said

I don't follow.

>>>But what if the techniques explored weren't in the how
>>>long, but in the what else can be done while?
>>
>>Such as?
>
>The particular example I'm thinking of is a solo tenor
>performance in which while a note is held

This, within a few sentences of complaining about my held-note example!

>while playing a
>percussive drum and bass like rhythm that produces an
>improvised melody.

Why would such a thing depend on the existence/influence of electronic music?

>Specifically the playing of dnb parts rhythmically on the sax
>while circular breathing.

So really, you're just saying saxophonists could make dnb sounds on their saxes.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                            
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 01:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "have you read both pieces yet though?"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

I'd much rather be talking about those than spending paragraphs upon paragraphs about what was less than 5% of the writing. We're having this semantical argument because I made fun of the semantical arguments in the opening. I even put myself at the butt of that. I thought it'd earn a chuckle so that we could put the rediculousness of my claim to the side while getting down at what could come out of taking a stab at the impossible.

Apparently I was wrong though. Everything must be addressed in these terms. But the point is that it cannot be addressed in these terms. So rather than attempt that, lets see what happens when we explore new terms.

If the notion of that doesn't keep you from exploring the presentation of those terms objectively, I'd love to hear your opinion on that. But this debate we've been having can go on for days and days and days and days.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

lonesome_d
Charter member
30443 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 03:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "will read later, but I've argued before here that if you don't consider"
In response to Reply # 0


          

'machines' to be instruments, than any instrument where there is an interface between the human and the sound being produced is disqualified. This would include the accordion (about which this conversation occurred roughly 150 years ago) and the piano.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
denny
Member since Apr 11th 2008
11281 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 05:06 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "Seems way to restrictive to me."
In response to Reply # 3


          

So any amplified instrument would be disqualified too?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Buck
Member since Feb 15th 2005
16151 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 05:17 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "There was quite a debate about the electric guitar."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Bombastic
Charter member
88874 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 05:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "because it is, I'm guessing that's LD's way of refuting the point"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
lonesome_d
Charter member
30443 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 01:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "I'm saying that"
In response to Reply # 7


          

if your primary argument is that a keyboard/sampler/turntable does not qualify as an 'instrument' because it is actually a 'machine,' then in order to maintain philosophical consistency, any 'machine' can not be an 'instrument.'

A 'machine' is a too that does some of your work for you. In the sense of machines used to produce music, I would apply this to any instrument where the interaction of the 'musician' and the element of the machine that produces the sound is indirect.

by indirect interaction, I mean that the musician does not physically interact with the mechanism which produces sound.

In an accordion, a human pumps the bellows, but the bellows forces the air through the reeds.

In a piano, a human pushes a button (sound familiar?) and the internal machine raises and lowers a hammer onto a string. Philosophically it's absolutely no different from a keyboard in which a human pushes a button and a sound comes out of the speaker; in both cases, a machine is doing what the human instructed it to do in order to produce a specific sound.

Electric instruments like guitar present sort of a hybrid of direct and indirect; which sound is produced through direct interaction, it is no usually the same sound that comes out the other end.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
imcvspl
Member since Mar 07th 2005
42239 posts
Mon Aug-12-13 06:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "less concrete definitions; more logical absurdities"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
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."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
lonesome_d
Charter member
30443 posts
Tue Aug-13-13 12:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "no energy to read that whopper today"
In response to Reply # 11


          

got through a few paragraphs, but had a Fin du Monde at lunch and want to just mellow out a bit...

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby The Lesson topic #2831402 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com