Whats Next?

In a Moog Mood? Here's a forum for discussion of general Moog topics.
thewaag
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by thewaag » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:30 pm

museslave wrote: I support the use and creation of alternate controllers! I would LOVE to have a massive ribbon controller, myself.
So you like ribbon controllers, eh? Ever heard of the Haken Continuum?

Check this out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mrmp2EaVChI

Now that is a ribbon controller. Not a bad keyboard player demonstrating... :lol:
Thanks Bob!!

rg
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by rg » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:49 pm

Any idiot in the world can sequence... it requires very little musicianship, skill or creativity. (I speak from experience, ha ha) It would pain me to see Moog begin to cater to that amateur market which is outside of the market in which they have authority.
I agree with this... I began music making back when I was 13 using a Mod Tracker.. Now that aided mean in learning how music is nuts and bolts structured and put together... But in my opinion there comes a time when one must "sh*t or get off the pot". I am by no means a good player. But you know what? I try my best and my capabilities or lack of express who I am through my playing.

I have seen many videos on Youtube nowdays of peopel making "Beats". They consist of a guy (Sometimes highly paid) hitting a pad or a key with one finger over and over doing step or loop sequencing. Not to be a jerk.. But be honest with yourself and what u are doing. Does tapping a key or pad with one finger doign overdub after overdub take as much skill as being able to actually play an instrument? I find it laughable as a "skill". If you are good at clicking notes into a grid on a screen what are you really good at? Having ideas? Great. But maybe something is lost when it takes very little effort to execute those ideas. I have been there. It's how I started. It has its uses but it can also be the easy way out.
It takes more courage to play even if you suck. I have sworn off of sequencing because of this. It can become a crutch. Is sequencing a skill that you can improve throughout your life? Maybe. But is it the same as polishing your skill actually playing an instrument throughout your life? At the end what are you really left with?

It reminds me of when i saw The Prodigy back in the 90s. People I went with were all hyped up "Wow that was awesome!". You know what I saw? I saw a guy behind 30 Keyboards pressing holding down one key at a time while he danced around. Not that the music wasn't enjoyable but you know what? A six year old child with a bit of practice and 2 fingers could play any of those synth parts. So why not learn how to play your instrument?

I wonder what people will say when people start sequencing vocals with an advanced vocal modeling technology. Will people being to lose the appreciation for someone who has learned to sing? Just type in some lyrics set the notes and boom the computer sings a song.

I think music is on a slippery slope in pop culture nowdays. Not that all people who sequence can't play. I know many great gcreative people who sequence and they can play as well. I just think many peopel use it as a cop out. Sure use sequencing to create something impossible to play. That is a wonderful usage of technology to enhance creativity. But I am seeing a whole lot of people out there who are sequencing a 50 bpm 3 note baseline. Cut pastecut paste cut paste.

Play those 3 notes... Play them slow, inconsistent, out of time and sloppy. Play them like a human being.

I think there is a big problem with people becoming a slave to muscial technology rather than its master.

I have decided that sequencing is the devil.

End Rant. Time to flame me :)

dr_floyd
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 pm

Post by dr_floyd » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:10 pm

Museslave, yeah, I'm in total agreement about analog synthesizers designed to be performance instruments, like violins, etc.

And while I don't do sequencing or pre-recorded tracks live, I am sometimes stunned by the innovations people come up with trying approaches I disagree with. So I end up learning a lot from sources I generally avoid.

Museslave wrote:
I'm wondering what control options you might desire that MIDI would provide that CV doesn't, and whether you would like to have those functions automated, or whether you would like to directly be in control of them?
For MIDI, it sure is more convenient live than CV. I like all modules to communicate, so adding MIDI to the CV stuff has been great. No automation, just for direct control. And the Lintronics Minimoog MIDI kit actually did add useful features to the Minimoog (especially mine, which doesn't have a keyboard).

Museslave wrote:
merely to say that Moog went with what people wanted and was not opposed to the keyboard.
You're right, I wrote Bob "didn't want" a keyboard, which isn't accurate.
Any idiot in the world can sequence... it requires very little musicianship, skill or creativity.
Well, I don't sequence and am not personally interested in the style to listen to, but I've heard some amazingly creative and musical approaches using sequencing. Mostly not, but there are some brilliant musicians who choose that approach. And maybe the reason relates to the following, which I remembered after reading your quote:

Joe Zawinul said something to the effect of: "Any idiot can learn to play a musical instrument, then you must learn music. It is the musician and the story she/he tells."

Thanks for the interesting posts.
Pat.

eric coleridge
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:46 am
Location: NYC

Post by eric coleridge » Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:24 pm

rg wrote:
Any idiot in the world can sequence... it requires very little musicianship, skill or creativity. (I speak from experience, ha ha) It would pain me to see Moog begin to cater to that amateur market which is outside of the market in which they have authority.
Any idiot can do anything, that doesn't mean that this tool can't be used to make brilliant, honest, or inspired music

Sequencers are a classic and fundemental tool in electronic music of all different kinds of varieties.

If you're into electronic music, and I'll have to assume are--unless you're just into forums in general-- I'd suggest you check out the music of Philip Glass, Cluster, Terry Riley, kraftwerk, tangerine dream, etc for inspired examples of sequenced electronic music... check it out dude.

matt the fiddler
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:07 pm

Post by matt the fiddler » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:40 pm

only 5,000 for that ribon controller, and only 800 for the midi to CV converter


I want 2
Electronic Violinist here

User avatar
latigid on
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by latigid on » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:44 pm

Ever heard "On the run" by Pink Floyd? It's one of my favourites. I think rg and others are refering to "Workstation" sequencing, where the producer writes music in Logic or ProTools or Cubase or whatever and can instantly generate a full symphony orchestra in the comfort of the studio/bedroom for a minimal price. Personally, I think "Analog" sequencing is different - playing a repetitive 8/12/16 note pattern into a synth and then tweaking knobs to change the sound - and I like this style. It's probably the easiest way to play a modular synth, as then you have both hands free for patching.

I went to see a band yesterday, who marketed thesmselves as having a great live show, with samplers, keyboards and dj-ing etc. But all I saw was three guys grooving infront of their controller keyboards doing the infamous two-armed knob tweak to the sound of the music. The dj breaks were quite cool, but it was always the same sample being scratched, and always in the same style. And you could totally tell it was 99% sequencer; it actually cut out a few times (kind-of like a CD skipping). Maybe the laptop was overheating/running out of RAM?

So, you get a very refined product simply running sequencer software, but I'd rather pay to see an actual, non-perfect live act any day.

User avatar
museslave
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Asheville
Contact:

Post by museslave » Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:55 am

eric coleridge wrote: Any idiot in the world can sequence... it requires very little musicianship, skill or creativity. (I speak from experience, ha ha) It would pain me to see Moog begin to cater to that amateur market which is outside of the market in which they have authority.
This was my original quote, so I should clarify what I meant.
Let me reiterate that I myself use sequencing. I am not saying that nothing good can come from sequencing, or that those who sequence are not musicians.
What I AM saying is that sequencing allows a person who has no musical understanding, no historical understanding, no aesthetic, no physical skill, etc. to create music that may sound as if they have at least one of those qualities, if not more.
It's like robot legs.
If you took, say, ME, and put robot legs on me that would allow me to run very fast, I could be in a race with [insert famous runner here]. While it may be obvious that my running was different, etc. I would still be able to do what someone else spent years of training, had talent, etc. to do.
While sequencers can be used to make incredible music, and have been used to make incredible music, the immense availability and low cost of sequencers today have made them basically into tools that any common person can use to sound like they know how to make music. More horrifying than this is the fact that simply because the music they make has a quality that is reminiscent (to the common ear) to what is made by talented, skilled, etc. people (and most people do not realize the difference between electronic music that was laboriously recorded and that which was made by holding down a single note on a rompler), the general public gives it VALIDITY.
That is what I mean by "any idiot can sequence."

I am not condemning the OTHER use of sequencing, which is when sequencing is not used as a tool to combat musical shortcomings, but rather as an expressive device... used in a creative, musically interesting, and UNIQUE way.

I personally got into sequencing when I was 17 or so because it was the only way to make recordings that came anywhere near studio-quality. :::old man voice::: Why, back in my day, the only way to record multitrack music was to buy a $600 cassette four-track (which still did not sound like a studio quality recording) or to get into the very new and exciting world of sequencing.
And, what effect did that have on my music? Well, I was able to create very cool professional sounding recordings, but it also didn't encourage me to develop musical skill, especially performance skill. When I went to college, I had written a great deal of great sounding sequenced music, but I learned that I had a lot to learn about musical performance.
eric coleridge wrote:If you're into electronic music, and I'll have to assume are--unless you're just into forums in general-- I'd suggest you check out the music of Philip Glass, Cluster, Terry Riley, kraftwerk, tangerine dream, etc for inspired examples of sequenced electronic music... check it out dude.
The truth is, I am no longer into electronic music.
Let me qualify that: I am in love with the history of electronic music. I have studied it in depth, and watched the last 25 years of it as it has happened. From about 1985-2000 I was an "electronic artist." I was a new wave songwriter, I moved into being a dance music writer, then I was a techno artist, then I was an industrial artist. I lost interest in electronic music when I realized that it had stopped moving forward. Since about 1999, nothing particularly new has happened in electronic music. While new sounds are being created, and new microgenres pop up all the time, but beyond that, there really isn't anywhere to go.
Electronic music, which used to be a means for exploring new timbres and generating music based upon technology, has now become a slave to the technology it embraces. In general, electronic music sounds the same today as it sounded 10 years ago. While there are truly astounding electronic musicians out there, the glut of cheap sequencing technology and the free access of the internet has generated a glut of perfectly worthless electronic music.
While I am not into electronic music anymore, you couldn't meet a person more obsessed with electronic music technology... provided it was built before 1983. : ) Anyone who questions my interest in synthesizers or skill in music is welcome to visit my myspace and or youtube profiles. : )

I am familiar with the works of Glass and Riley... and it's funny you should bring them up. Minimalism was a wonderful intellectual artistic concept, and was extremely refreshing when it was big (not that it was ever commercially big). However, like much of today's electronic music, repetition loses it's artisitic value when the original expression has long worn out.
In the Walker Art Center, in Minneapolis, there is a painting of an orange square. I cannot remember the exact story for this painting, but in its time it was hailed as aritistically important because it was a painting of an orange square. This was the era where art became as much about process as it was about aesthetics. However, this was many years ago. Today, it is not likely that a new painting of an orange square is going to have even the SLIGHTEST artistic impact.
Years ago, when sequencing was NEW, there were plenty of artists who were pushing the boundaries of the technology... finding its strengths and weaknesses. These are the artists who defined a lot of the electronic genres that are still here today. (Re: Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream)

I remember how COOL it was to have a quantized sound... how the sequencer could decide what rhythms you were playing... and how timing "mistakes" created really cool rhythms that you may not have intended, but liked nonetheless. Couldn't play a particular part? Well, slow the sequencer down... suddenly you're a VIRTUOSO! I remember how a lot of people bought sequencing technology just to emulate that quantized sound.
Bizarrely, it's still happening today. With the BOUNDLESS sources of inexpensive realtime multitrack recording, one has to wonder why people choose sequencers. Why is it that electronic music is still so dependent upon MIDI and sequencing?
One might suspect because it requires more physical skill to record electronic music without sequencing, quantizing, etc.

Sorry for the essay. : )
www.youtube.com/user/automaticgainsay
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic

User avatar
bunnyman
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:04 am
Location: New Orleans

Post by bunnyman » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:31 pm

Why do you think that the PROCESS of creating music has anything at all to do with the LISTENER'S musical experience? For example (since minimalism has been brought up) take LaMonte Young's Drift studies. A day-long performance of a single sine tone. How difficult is it to plug the output of a sine wave oscillator to an amplifier? Yet, people have had profoundly musical experiences while listening to this type of piece in the right environment. I keep thinking of the John Cage quote, "What is more musical: a truck passing by a factory, or a truck passing by a music store?" Who's more proficient, Joe Strummer or Eddie Van Halen? Have the people who've enjoyed the Clash been duped by his technical inabilities? Does it really matter how hard it is to play something?

Just a few thoughts...

-andrew bunny

User avatar
museslave
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Asheville
Contact:

Post by museslave » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:28 pm

bunnyman wrote:Why do you think that the PROCESS of creating music has anything at all to do with the LISTENER'S musical experience? For example (since minimalism has been brought up) take LaMonte Young's Drift studies. A day-long performance of a single sine tone. How difficult is it to plug the output of a sine wave oscillator to an amplifier? Yet, people have had profoundly musical experiences while listening to this type of piece in the right environment. I keep thinking of the John Cage quote, "What is more musical: a truck passing by a factory, or a truck passing by a music store?" Who's more proficient, Joe Strummer or Eddie Van Halen? Have the people who've enjoyed the Clash been duped by his technical inabilities? Does it really matter how hard it is to play something?

Just a few thoughts...

-andrew bunny
Hello, Andrew.

Very good thoughts, I think.

A day-long performance of a single sine tone is wonderful aesthetic art... I would be totally into that. But, that's art... it's not about a musical instrument, or performance of that instrument.

Primarily, my point revolves around this concept:
The Bell Curve.
Musical instruments cannot be played by everyone... that is why there is such a designation as "musician." There is a distinction that divides people who can do a thing from people who cannot do a thing. This distinction is what keeps those who cannot do the thing enjoying the thing that some people can do. It also keeps those who CAN do the thing enjoying others who can do the thing... because there is a natural progression of skill and production that keeps things fresh and everyone happy.
When the ability to do that thing is given to EVERYONE via technology, that thing ceases to have a distinction other than "good" or "bad."
Synthesizer players have it hard because the general public always thought that somehow a computer was involved, and that the synthesizer player really wasn't as musically skilled or talented as, say, a piano player. People have always thought of synthesizers as imitative devices... as computers. These days, they have become that... imitative computers... and AS such have allowed anyone... regardless of skill, talent, understanding, ANYTHING to generate what they or anyone in the middle of the bell curve might consider music.
Now, certainly... we can always say "all sound is music," and "anyone can be a musician," and "don't apply your elitist views to art" etc. But the truth of the matter is, we all know, or should know, that there is great music, and there are great musicians, and there is always going to be a musician who is a better musician than you, and whose music is better.
Bringing synthesizers and electronic music to the masses in a democratization of music did nothing to improve the various genres... it, if anything, made it SO commonplace that people basically identify eletronic music with RINGTONES more than they do an art.

Being a synthesizer player (in the original sense of the word) is in many ways as difficult as being a violin player. It is conceptually difficult, technically difficult, and musically difficult. That's why the synthesizer gods arose... people who actually could make gorgeous music with these complicated devices.
Sadly, the very technology that made synthesizers possible, also allowed them to be dumbed-down, simplified, computerized and ready to be bought by every single person on earth... and in that process, the validity, quality, and joy of electronic music has been diminished.
www.youtube.com/user/automaticgainsay
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic

eric coleridge
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:46 am
Location: NYC

Post by eric coleridge » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:52 am

museslave wrote: I am not condemning the OTHER use of sequencing, which is when sequencing is not used as a tool to combat musical shortcomings, but rather as an expressive device... used in a creative, musically interesting, and UNIQUE way.
IMO, the two aren't mutually exclusive. It seems to me that there is a great deal of recorded music, electronic and otherwise, that is expressive, creative, unique, and even musically interesting made by "musicians" without traditional musical training or "chops" in a narrow sense of the word.
But even in the event that an artist would use artificial tools to compensate for shortcomings in technical virtuosity, there is still an opportunity to make up for these shortcommings in other areas of expression or performance. I think this idea is particularly true in a vocal/poetic type of medium like rap where the "music" is often just a rhythmic accompaniment to the vocal track.
Which is not to say that hip-hop, or other vocal mediums--like rock, are especially bereft of traditional musicality or virtuosity--- or that there isn't a potential for an elevated non-traditional kind of virtuosity inherent in these forms.
museslave wrote: When I went to college, I had written a great deal of great sounding sequenced music, but I learned that I had a lot to learn about musical performance.
I totally agree. Live music is a totally different situation. Unfortunately, because no one listens to live music anymore, it's almost irrelavant to most music listeners.
museslave wrote: I lost interest in electronic music when I realized that it had stopped moving forward. Since about 1999, nothing particularly new has happened in electronic music. While new sounds are being created, and new microgenres pop up all the time, but beyond that, there really isn't anywhere to go.
I don't think it's possible for any one person to definitely know what is happening in in even one form of music, in every country at any one time, much less to predicate that the evolution of a perceptual form, which has been in perpetual flux since the birth of man, could all at once come to an end--could literally run out of permutations. So, respectfully museslave, these statements are preposterous to me.
Isn't electronic music just normal music but made on synthesizers, or organs, or theremins, or whatever?
museslave wrote: In general, electronic music sounds the same today as it sounded 10 years ago. While there are truly astounding electronic musicians out there, the glut of cheap sequencing technology and the free access of the internet has generated a glut of perfectly worthless electronic music.
I have no doubt of this, but I think your're limiting your definition of electronic music unnecessarily. In the broad sense, all recorded music is electronic music; but even in a more narrow sense, I'm aware of a number of interesting forms of music, in the past 5 years even, that have inevitably adopted electronics in their arrangement. Off the top of my head.. Indian Bangra, or Jamaican Dancehall...
museslave wrote: I am familiar with the works of Glass and Riley... and it's funny you should bring them up. Minimalism was a wonderful intellectual artistic concept, and was extremely refreshing when it was big (not that it was ever commercially big). However, like much of today's electronic music, repetition loses it's artisitic value when the original expression has long worn out.
I feel like all great music is timeless and even when the particular genre becomes stale or unfashionable the essence of whatever honest and pure expression was present always remains fresh and unmutable... whether it's dixieland jazz, polka, minimalism or rockabilly...
museslave wrote: In the Walker Art Center, in Minneapolis, there is a painting of an orange square. I cannot remember the exact story for this painting, but in its time it was hailed as aritistically important because it was a painting of an orange square. This was the era where art became as much about process as it was about aesthetics. However, this was many years ago. Today, it is not likely that a new painting of an orange square is going to have even the SLIGHTEST artistic impact.
I've never been there, but I think you're describing Josef Alber's Homage to the Square. He made 10,000 of them in different colors. It was a color study, and he also published a color theory book describing the ideas explored in the paintings-- which continues to be used today in many university level art programs. Which goes to show you that even if the painting style or conceptual idiom has become unfashionable or otherwise irrelavant to the contemporary popular form-- much of the essence of the piece is undisturbed.
Even so, I'm not sure if I agree with youre statement--but it's not neccesarily a straight-forward comparison between artistic merit and percieved relevence at any given time is it? I mean is an artforms' newness or "revolutionairiness" or seminal status the only measure of it's beauty or effectiveness or strength?
museslave wrote: I remember how COOL it was to have a quantized sound... how the sequencer could decide what rhythms you were playing... and how timing "mistakes" created really cool rhythms that you may not have intended, but liked nonetheless. Couldn't play a particular part? Well, slow the sequencer down... suddenly you're a VIRTUOSO! I remember how a lot of people bought sequencing technology just to emulate that quantized sound.
But for people who weren't around then, these gimmics are still novel... and can still be approached, potentially, from a fresh point of veiw. No?
museslave wrote: Bizarrely, it's still happening today. With the BOUNDLESS sources of inexpensive realtime multitrack recording, one has to wonder why people choose sequencers. Why is it that electronic music is still so dependent upon MIDI and sequencing?
One might suspect because it requires more physical skill to record electronic music without sequencing, quantizing, etc.
Probably, but there's almost no difference btween software multi-tracking and sequencing anyway. As you probably know, they're typically one and the same program. Sometimes people use MIDI to save recording tracks as per their needs, and sometimes it's just a function of the new traditions and protocols that have grown around electronic production: first you sequence your instruments and beats, then record... or a vestige of when recording time was a very valuable commodity.
museslave wrote: Sorry for the essay. : )
Likewise, and sorry for all the disagreement. I respect what you write here and enjoy reading your opinions--as they often elevate the level of dialogue on this forum. But I think your being a little overly reactionairy... as if somehow technology has long past reached it's apex and now merely confines it's user. How could you allow this to be true and still care to work within this media?

eric coleridge
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:46 am
Location: NYC

Post by eric coleridge » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:26 am

bunnyman wrote: Who's more proficient, Joe Strummer or Eddie Van Halen? Have the people who've enjoyed the Clash been duped by his technical inabilities? Does it really matter how hard it is to play something?
This is it: technical proficientcy is, at least, not the only measure of musical merit... And by my way of thinking nowhere near the most important measure. Not to say it's not meaningful and/or important at all...
museslave wrote: A day-long performance of a single sine tone is wonderful aesthetic art... I would be totally into that. But, that's art... it's not about a musical instrument, or performance of that instrument.
These performances were an out-growth of Young's earlier compositions for violin exploring micro-tonal composition. They were not considered art peices, or even conceived as musical minimalism--- though obviously they could be interpreted within either context. They were musical endeavors written by a classically trained composer who was vibing on eastern musical structures. Simple from one perspective and infinitely complex from another.

Not pointing this out to be pedantic, but just to underscore bunnyman's point that true art/music evades conscription to any easy, straight-forward reductions. If someone wants to enjoy music exclusively for it's athleticism, that's fine by me, but IMO, for it to be truely great, there always needs to be an eneffable poetry in it's performative expression that is beyond it's mere physical execution.

User avatar
museslave
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Asheville
Contact:

Post by museslave » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:29 pm

eric coleridge wrote:IMO, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Let me understand: You are saying there is no difference to you between a person who intentionally uses a creative tool to a creative end, and a person who uses a creative tool in order to emulate a sound that they are not otherwise capable of emulating? Certainly the two can overlap, but there seems to be a rather plain distinction to me.
eric coleridge wrote:It seems to me that there is a great deal of recorded music, electronic and otherwise, that is expressive, creative, unique, and even musically interesting made by "musicians" without traditional musical training or "chops" in a narrow sense of the word.
I would never question that. I would never suggest that musical training defines whether a person can create great music or not. Often, it is not the case... I have found that virtuosos usually write boring music; music theorists usually write extremely theoretical, but not very expressive, music, etc. Training and education do not necessarily make for great, creative, etc. music.
I think the main problem with uneducated musicians is that they are in great danger of creating music that they personally find unique which is not unique. Does that make it invalid? Of course not. It might be really really cool... but it's not going to be as exciting to someone who knows that what they have done has been done, perhaps frequently.

Here is a fundament of the point I'm trying to make: The days of sequenced music exploring the capability of sequenced music are over... the sequencer has been adequately explored. Which is to say, music which exploits and references the sound and function of sequencers as opposed to using sequencers as a creative end to music that is desired to be expressed is basically a "retro" activity.

Here is another fundament: (one that anyone can disagree with, should they like to... I do not assert it as the way everyone should think) Music is a progression. In any style, form, or genre, a major desire and goal is for that music to progress and improve, and essentially change. (this is largely limited to Western music, which is viewed by those who make it, to be an artistic process... so, I'm not talking about Balinese music, or other primitive music, which may NOT change and often has a functional or ritual usage as opposed to expressive) Those who make most specific genres desire to create a NEW interpretation of that genre... being both expressive of the ideals of that genre, expressive of the intent of that composer, and unique enough to gain the interest of an audience and/or other composers. This has been the way things have gone for centuries. (even when Romantic era composers like Mendelsohn resurrected Bach, their own music [while influenced by those they resurrected] was not an emulation, but rather merely inspired) In the 1970s, when 50s rock was revived in a big way (to the point of completely just writing songs entirely in that style), it was a new thing. Let me retroactively apply an anachronicstic term "retro" to it. : ) Progressively, many styles and genres were revived for the next couple of decades. In the 90s, something weird happened in popular music... genres which had largely been played out in the preceeding decade did not die.
For example, in 1985, when I was writing my first pop music, it would have been absolutely LUDICROUS to implement any of the stylistic elements present in music that had been made JUST 5 YEARS BEFORE. That music was over... the 70s were dead, and at least in 1985, anyone who was trying to be a rockstar would never be caught sounding anything like it.
However, in 1995 the hatred of 5 years before did not exist. People were pretty down on synthesizer-based music in the popular realm, but it didn't go away.
In 2005, not only were people still doing the exact same electronic music they were doing 5 years before, but "underground" electronic musicians were still doing the same thing they were doing TEN years before.

I will not insist that all music change based solely on my own adherence to a desire for music to progress and improve, but keeping that concept in mind, one could see why I would be confused by and judge the as-of-late lack of change. This is the basis for my rant about sequencing being done.

Keeping all of THAT in mind, add my last essay to the mix... the genre (to me) has become stagnant and worse than that, now EVERY SINGLE PERSON can do it RIGHT AT HOME on their OWN COMPUTER. In my day, we designed our own patches, worked our asses to get then-limited sequencers to do what we wished, and then went to great ends to get it recorded... often spending a great deal of money. These days, any 13 year old kid can drag some pre-made loops into Garage Band and jump into the electronic music conversation as if they really had anything to do with the music they "wrote."
eric coleridge wrote:But even in the event that an artist would use artificial tools to compensate for shortcomings in technical virtuosity, there is still an opportunity to make up for these shortcommings in other areas of expression or performance.
I completely agree. I am that person, too. I would never say that I was a technically brilliant performer. I have frequently used sequencing to make up for my own shortcomings... like, for example, the fact that I am not an orchestra. ; )
If the end justifies the means, people would not need to sequence, or even talk about sequencing... the fact that people DESIRE to sequence suggests that they seek that particular device out for a reason. They WANT to sequence, and use sequencers. And why is that? It IS just another form of recording... but it is a form of recording which ALLOWS certain things that other forms do not... and I state that those who seek to sequence seek to use the tool for those things it provides. Granted, creative music can still be made even if you seek a tool to overcome shortcomings... but so often it isn't... so often the tool defines the music made more than the user. That is what I protest.
And, I don't even really protest it... what I protest is that music made where the tool defines the product is given equal credit to a situation where the composer defines the product.
eric coleridge wrote: I don't think it's possible for any one person to definitely know what is happening in in even one form of music, in every country at any one time, much less to predicate that the evolution of a perceptual form, which has been in perpetual flux since the birth of man, could all at once come to an end--could literally run out of permutations. So, respectfully museslave, these statements are preposterous to me.
Isn't electronic music just normal music but made on synthesizers, or organs, or theremins, or whatever?
Regarding perpetual flux: See what I wrote earlier about the progression of music.
I would never say that music has run out of permutations.
I would never even say that a single instrument can run out of permutations... but you have to concur that there are boundaries that we as humans tend to adhere to musically. While 12-tone music very clearly demonstrated that our system of music is infinite, it totally failed as far as being a generally expressive form of music. There are things we tend to require from music that limit it in some respects. While those requirements change gradually over time, there are still boundaries we seem to want to work within.
Electronic music is far LESS limited than even music made with traditional instruments. For that reason, i would expect that there would be an INFINITE and UNLIMITED list of genres... and despite everyone's desire to hang a new genre title on their individual music, the "genres" being created, in my opinion, rarely are distinctive enough to earn a new title.
If electronic music is SO unlimited, why are so many of those who consider themselves electronic artists still using the same drum machine patterns that were used 15 years ago? Why does House Music still exist? Why is it that with the exception of upon some college campuses the notion of electronic art music has been completely overshadowed by electronica?
I guess my protestations concerning electronic music might be boiled down to the fact that a grand artistic venture, the boundless creativity provided by electronic music, is now defined by everyone at home on their computer... without any knowledge of the history that came before.
I have nothing against electronic music... I have been writing it since 1985. I am complaining about how it is now as narrow as rap, and defined by those who live primarily in a "popular" permutation of it. (electronica)
Now to the point you were making: Yes, admittedly... I do not know every single thing that is happening in the entirety of the world in regard to what someone is doing with a sequencer. Every argument or debate requires both side to have the luxury of generalization... otherwise no one could ever argue a single point. : )
GRANTED: there are musicians doing AMAZING things with sequencers. There is someone somewhere who is doing something so amazing and groundbreaking with a sequencer as to make me seem like a total and complete idiot. There is someone, or a lot of someones, somewhere, whose sequenced music so exceeds my own music, sequenced or no, as to render my opinion completely invalid. But these people are VERY UNFORTUNATELY on the margins. Put them in the center of the bell curve, and I'll shut my yap. : )

As for what electronic music is:
If that is in question, yes... we probably need to define that before we can go any further in this discussion. ; )

There are a number of different types of electronic music. Sadly, the body of people think they are all one in the same... and it is THAT basis from which my argument stems. Many people think that say... Aphex Twin is in the same genre or history as Karlheinz Stockhausen. Like, for example, those who wrote that wretched book/movie Modulations. This is like saying that Elvis (or, someone who actually wrote music in the 1950s) is in the same direct lineage as Beethoven. While certainly all Western music, electronic or not, is connected... what is currently called "electronic music" in my opinion is not a direct relative of the groundbreaking experimental 20th Century (style, not century) music of Stockhausen. (nor, for that matter was Pierre Schaeffer "an early turntablist")

What would you say defines "electronic music," Eric?




eric coleridge wrote:I feel like all great music is timeless and even when the particular genre becomes stale or unfashionable the essence of whatever honest and pure expression was present always remains fresh and unmutable... whether it's dixieland jazz, polka, minimalism or rockabilly...
Indubitably. If many artists who consider themselves "electronic music" today referred to themselves as "retro," I would essentially have nothing to complain about. ; )
For example, you could easily call me a hypocrite. What sort of music do I currently primarily write? Why 1970s and 1960s emulative music, of course! The music I have the most fun writing is in really no way groundbreaking. I'm not doing anything new, really at all... except inasmuch as my particular creative style isn't necessarily a carbon copy of those I seek to emulate. The difference is: I am not proposing that I am breaking ground... I am fully aware of what has been done before. Too so, sadly. Still, I desire what I do to hopefully have a certain sort of "timelessness."
I feel like I need to restate that I am not condemning anyone's music. I'm sure someone is saying "this a**hole thinks his music is better than mine" or "this a**hole is condeming what I write!" But, I'm not. If you want, you can tell me to start writing something more new. ; )
eric coleridge wrote:I've never been there, but I think you're describing Josef Alber's Homage to the Square. He made 10,000 of them in different colors. It was a color study, and he also published a color theory book describing the ideas explored in the paintings-- which continues to be used today in many university level art programs. Which goes to show you that even if the painting style or conceptual idiom has become unfashionable or otherwise irrelavant to the contemporary popular form-- much of the essence of the piece is undisturbed.
If those who use sequencing in a "traditional" way will admit that they are essentially doing "retro," I'll drop my argument. : )

eric coleridge wrote:Even so, I'm not sure if I agree with youre statement--but it's not neccesarily a straight-forward comparison between artistic merit and percieved relevence at any given time is it? I mean is an artforms' newness or "revolutionairiness" or seminal status the only measure of it's beauty or effectiveness or strength?
I think you're making a great point, but for me to answer it, we need to define more issues.
There is no such thing as "musical merit" if we think that everything that everyone does is equally valid or meritous. If such a thing as musical merit exists, we have to be able to say that some music is essentially better than other music. I am willing to do this, but I'm not sure how willing you are...
Every musical creation has merit with the composer. Every person who writes a song or composes a piece, I am assuming, is moved by their own work or at least feels that they have created something that pleases them. In this way, ANY music has merit and is valuable.
However (unfortunately), the value of a piece of music is not defined by the composer... it is defined by the response of the musicians and general populace. Sadly, usually moreso the latter. It is a natural aspect of human nature that something groundbreaking and new AS WELL AS expressive is always going to be viewed as more important than something that is status quo and expressive.
Say you and I heard two musical pieces composed at the same time... both being high quality expressive music. I suspect we would both be more appreciative of the one that broke new ground. If the musicality and expressiveness are equal, groundbreaking will likely always win. It's because we as humans want that eternal musical progression to continue. With the general public, it's not as pronounced as it is with musicians... but it's still there.
eric coleridge wrote: But for people who weren't around then, these gimmics are still novel... and can still be approached, potentially, from a fresh point of veiw. No?
The gimmicks may be novel for the new synth user who is writing at home... but how can they be if that person has heard any music written in the last 20 years?
I don't think the sequencer, as it currently stands, can be used with a fresh point of view. The music WRITTEN on one can be, though, I suppose... but then again, what about a sequencer could be fresh? Meters? Tempos? Quantization? Automated synth control? In the end, which I think is your argument, it's the MUSIC, not the device, that would be fresh... I believe the functional gimmicks of sequencers have currently been largely exploited.

eric coleridge wrote:]
Probably, but there's almost no difference btween software multi-tracking and sequencing anyway. As you probably know, they're typically one and the same program. Sometimes people use MIDI to save recording tracks as per their needs, and sometimes it's just a function of the new traditions and protocols that have grown around electronic production: first you sequence your instruments and beats, then record... or a vestige of when recording time was a very valuable commodity.[/quote]
If there is no difference between sequencing and realtime recording, why is everyone so dependent on having their analog synth retrofitted with MIDI? If these processes are essentially the same, there would be no need for the automated version.
Yes, I have often used sequencing as a sketchpad, and then gone in and recorded... and I'm sure plenty of people do that. But again... a sequencer is not required for the music in that situation, it's merely a convenience.
As recording time is now NOT a valuable commodity, the added step of sequencing, you'd think, would fall away.
But, it hasn't... and why? Because people specifically seek it as a recording tool. And why, when recording time and multitracking are no longer valuable commodities? As I said before: what defines the difference between a sequencer and a realtime recording device/program? Sequencers automate and quantize.
It is hard record music in realtime. It is difficult to play a musical instrument with precision timing, or even just timing... it's difficult to get the notes right. It's difficult to play expressively. These things require time, skill, and patience. It is FAR easier to sequence...
eric coleridge wrote: Likewise, and sorry for all the disagreement. I respect what you write here and enjoy reading your opinions--as they often elevate the level of dialogue on this forum. But I think your being a little overly reactionairy... as if somehow technology has long past reached it's apex and now merely confines it's user. How could you allow this to be true and still care to work within this media?
Oh, man... I totally welcome disagreement. Especially informed and intelligent disagreement such as yours. I totally love a great debate!
I am being very reactionary... and probably a little heavy handed. Your viewpoint is very complimentary to mine because it balances it nicely. I think you and I are totally meeting in the middle.
I don't think technology has reached its apex at all. I think there are going to be some truly amazing advances. I think some of these advances will be of great use by creative musicians... but I think a lot of advances will also be purely for money... there is money to be made in software that allows everyone to be able to make music like their idol.
I am on MySpace, as I'm sure is evident from my signature. On my MySpace blog, I often type long-texted rants about analog synthesis. People also frequently find my MySpace page having watched my synthesizer videos on YouTube. So, who adds me? Electronica bands. Over and over. I have no idea why. I suppose because they like what I have to say about synthesizers, or whatever... but it certainly can't be because they think we write the same sort of music. ; ) Anyway... that which I have heard from the electronica bands who have added me has not been a celebration of sequenced creativity, but rather usually a musical nod to electronic artists of the past (and they are ALWAYS sequenced). Basically... the same thing that I'm doing... but the difference is, they consider themselves modern in their genre, whereas I fully recognize that I am "retro."
Why is it that the body of electronic artists are ALWAYS sequenced? I would love to hear electronic bands that were realtime. How cool would THAT be? (I'm sure they exist, but I haven't heard many)
Actually, I would love to see someone explore an idea I had in about 1995... I would love to see/hear a band that wrote "traditional" techno/industrial/electronica music using acoustic instruments in realtime. : )
www.youtube.com/user/automaticgainsay
www.myspace.com/automaticgainsay2
www.myspace.com/godfreyscordialmusic

User avatar
latigid on
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by latigid on » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:03 pm

That's what we do, Muse. Live drums, Moog Voyager, Rhodes, Space echo, VERY minimal sequencing (the drummer goes out of time anyway ;) ) and all into hardware keyboards only, no sampling bar minimal phrase looping on a digital delay, MIDI used almost exclusively for sysex transfer.

I either like to classify (not that everything needs classification, but it helps people understand your sound) the music as experimental dub/funk/drum'n'bass/ fusion or perhaps progessive electronic, which is actually a style according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_electronica , but I'm not sure we mean the same thing. Kind of along the lines of "music for musicians," but it is still listenable to a general audience; the listener takes as much depth as they like. Much of the music is fully improvised, and songs can go for 30 mins.

I've tried to start a Myspace, but still can't quite work it. Do you have to invite people first or something?

User avatar
bunnyman
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:04 am
Location: New Orleans

Post by bunnyman » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:20 pm

Actually, I would love to see someone explore an idea I had in about 1995... I would love to see/hear a band that wrote "traditional" techno/industrial/electronica music using acoustic instruments in realtime. : )[/quote]

Have you heard the Brodsky Quartet? They've done arrangements of pop songs for the string quartet (Kraftwerk, in particular). They're rather enjoyable!

-a bunny

User avatar
latigid on
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by latigid on » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm


Post Reply