TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- music is obsolete (as we know it)
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

@Ishkur - Are you familiar with Billy Collins and his 'Paradelle'? I was reminded of it when you mentioned 'all' media.

if anyone is interested, Billy Collins, who was the American Poet Laureate, basically invented a deliberately limiting form of poetry which he called the "Paradelle" (like Villanelle, Elegy, Ode, Sonnet, Limerick, etc etc) From this form he was able to essentially generate the poem given a basic text.

quote:

The paradelle is one of the more demanding French fixed forms, first appearing in the langue d'oc love poetry of the eleventh century. It is a poem of four six-line stanzas in which the first and second lines, as well as the third and fourth lines of the first three stanzas, must be identical. The fifth and sixth lines, which traditionally resolve these stanzas, must use all the words from the preceding lines and only those words. Similarly, the final stanza must use every word from all the preceding stanzas and only those words.

Click here for examples

Skip, it's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to insult. Feel free to disagree with me.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec smc, while you might call them pioneers of styles, they were also among the pioneers of methods, which is the center of my interest. The styles were due to the methods, style was slave to method, it was infused with method.

Were they the first to ever use a drum machine or what are you saying? And so what, that's the case with all music. A guitarists music is much a result of the method he employs, playing on a guitar. My music is a result of the methods i employ. If someone gave me a didgeridoo and bongo drums my music would sound quite a bit different.

quote:

I think you misunderstood the use of their names - I brought them up because they were pretty much everyday kids subverting new technology. I was just suggesting that more people to day ought to subvert technology rather than be slave to it. Programs like Pure Data can work to this end...

Can you give examples of subverting technology and being a slave to it?

subverting technology example #1

adjusting two turntables rotational speed to match the tempo of two different pieces of music so that they can be seamlessly overlaid.

#2

using a roland tb 303 to generate squelchy, screaming, acid noises

#3

dragging a record below the needle in rhythmic patterns to create a musical sound

#4

using frequencies of telephone tones to send messages to telecommunications companies in order to make free long distance calls

etc etc

using "contemporary larry heards and derrick mays" is an example of "synecdoche", which is a literary device that involves using a part to refer to the whole. In this case, I am using the term larry heards and derrick mays to mean "young people in the 80s who were making early forms of music out of technology that wasn't expressly invented for those forms of music."

Obviously they weren't the first.

And I agree with you - that's true with analog forms of music for sure. But now there are sampled guitars in rock music, for example, that are not even the actual sound of the player! So again, my interest is in how transparent the process is - does the final musical result reveal how it was made or is it basically a musical 'facade' on a textbook structure?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Skip, it's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to insult. Feel free to disagree with me.

what did you expect? that everyone would praise your theory and just take it word by word with no criticism?
i haven't deliberately insulted you. i may have insulted your theory though as i think it's ridiculous and i think it's ridiculous that you don't even back it up. so i don't really think that you believe in it yourself even. come on. prove me wrong.
and i'm sorry if you feel that i've insulted you, but i've only said what i think of your theory. i may have been blunt about it, but there's no point in sugarcoating every negative opinion. negative opinions are great IMO as they really aid the formation of a true conversation. if everyone agrees, there's nothing to talk about.
so if you really believe in your theory then try to come up with some convincing arguments for it and answer the questions i presented. if you won't do that then there's really not much to talk about here.

And how is one a slave to the 303 for example?

@skip - it's not my theory. these are ideas that have been circulating since the 70s and probably earlier, and are popular now in other discourses such as architecture.

again, I don't care if you disagree with me, that's fine. I just don't see the need to label things as bullshit. It's not about sugarcoating, it's about being mature and respectful. Why does what I am saying seem to personally anger you?

I agree, negative opinions are the reason the world goes around. Check my signature for a quote on that. By that same token, if the ideas I am bringing up are a denial of the status quo, yhen we are really in the same game, aren't we...

I think the first paragraph of my post says "this is not really an argument, more of a question". I didn't post this looking for arguments, like I said, it's not my theory, and I don't really believe in it, I only find it interesting and I wanted to bring it to public attention. If you think the ideas are fruitless, maybe you can say that in a more respectful way.


Maybe in 5 years after I have thought about it more I will be able to form an argument about it, and then you can tell me it's not convincing, but for now you are wasting your time because you're arguing against an argument that doesn't even exist.

On the other hand, I suppose I have made some of my own claims in this thread, and if you want to debate it, allow me some time to make the proper arguments. I don't really see how you yourself have made a 'convincing argument' or what that exactly is for you - are you talking sources etc? Because part of me thinks you call it unconvincing only because you disagree with it.

@smc - with that particular machine you're not slave per se as you would be using like a jp8080 with presets, but I suppose the slave end of the spectrum for the tb 303 would be to use it as a bassline, which is how the machine is described, and the subversion is to use it as something other than a bassline. I see your point.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @Ishkur - Are you familiar with Billy Collins and his 'Paradelle'? I was reminded of it when you mentioned 'all' media.

There was a French art movement in the 19th century that is also like that called Parnassian. Where the structure and rules are so rigid and defined that following them is harder than the actual artistic expression.

Kind of a "let's see how creative you can be while thinking inside the box" mentality. I've often referred to a lot of electronic music genres (among them trance) as being Parnassian.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Can you give examples of subverting technology and being a slave to it?

The history of electronic music is literally nothing but the history of renegade musicians and artists distorting, corrupting, destroying and bending their instruments far beyond their intended applications.

Plastikman - Spastic is ONE 808. ONE. Go ask Richie how he did it.

There are a lot of words I don't know and I don't feel like looking them up right now. Maybe later.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @smc - with that particular machine you're not slave per se as you would be using like a jp8080 with presets, but I suppose the slave end of the spectrum for the tb 303 would be to use it as a bassline, which is how the machine is described, and the subversion is to use it as something other than a bassline. I see your point.

And i don't see yours, it's all arbitrary and very abstract. Using a thing for what it's originators had in mind, what's so negative in that to inspire the notion of being a slave to something. I mean, are you a slave to your toothbrush because you use it to brush your teeth?

To explain it simply, SMC: Yes, you are. The toothbrush defines and controls your behavior when you hold it. In a sense, it is using you, not the other way around.

Read Mcluhan's "Understanding Media" (a caveat: he defines media as anything that is an extension of man, used to extend man's senses past his corporeal self. A hammer is media--being an extension of the hand, the fist, of man's penchance for striking--just as much as a television is). He explains exactly this sort of thing.

Didn't Bruce Lee try to do the same thing with martial arts or something.

Well that's an interesting point you bring up. Actually a lot of these ideas relate directly to the animation of characters as well as physics systems in today's video games, especially fighting/action games.

There is an Indiana Jones game coming out which uses a technology they call "Dynamic Motion Synthesis"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACZMsKN7fk

watch this. note that they call it "Biomechanical Artificial Intelligence"

so after you watch this if you can rack your brain and imagine the same parametric ideas could be applied to music you might see what i am talking about.

Technology is always just a passing 'fad' so to speak, it comes and goes and constantly changing at a rapid pace, my stepfather who's an engineer of sorts explained that it was mostly a case, especially with software that they replace it too quickly.
What this leads to is 'artists' so to speak, the ones who push the envelope of the technology of the time having to constantly switch their art to a new media with little time to actually 'master' it at a risk of being left being left behind the curve.
Essentially the longer a product, tool or instrument gets left in service the better the results will be from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur To explain it simply, SMC: Yes, you are. The toothbrush defines and controls your behavior when you hold it. In a sense, it is using you, not the other way around.

Yeah, the tootbrush coerces me to brush my teeth, it's taking over.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Yeah, the tootbrush coerces me to brush my teeth, it's taking over.

It doesn't have to. You do that all by yourself. You give yourself willingly over to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur It doesn't have to. You do that all by yourself. You give yourself willingly over to it.

If it's my deliberate choice the toothbrush doesn't control shit, and that's not what you wrote earlier.

But is it really?

No, think about that.


(also: read Godel and Heisenberg)

quote:

Originally posted by SMC If it's my deliberate choice the toothbrush doesn't control shit, and that's not what you wrote earlier.

It's not the toothbrush controlling you. You are the one willingly submitting to the intended purpose of the toothbrush. It's not a bad thing; you need to brush your teeth after all. The point is, there are other ways of using the toothbrush (cleaning pipes, maybe?).

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @skip - it's not my theory. these are ideas that have been circulating since the 70s and probably earlier, and are popular now in other discourses such as architecture. again, I don't care if you disagree with me, that's fine. I just don't see the need to label things as bullshit. It's not about sugarcoating, it's about being mature and respectful. Why does what I am saying seem to personally anger you? I agree, negative opinions are the reason the world goes around. Check my signature for a quote on that. By that same token, if the ideas I am bringing up are a denial of the status quo, yhen we are really in the same game, aren't we... I think the first paragraph of my post says "this is not really an argument, more of a question". I didn't post this looking for arguments, like I said, it's not my theory, and I don't really believe in it, I only find it interesting and I wanted to bring it to public attention. If you think the ideas are fruitless, maybe you can say that in a more respectful way. Maybe in 5 years after I have thought about it more I will be able to form an argument about it, and then you can tell me it's not convincing, but for now you are wasting your time because you're arguing against an argument that doesn't even exist. On the other hand, I suppose I have made some of my own claims in this thread, and if you want to debate it, allow me some time to make the proper arguments. I don't really see how you yourself have made a 'convincing argument' or what that exactly is for you - are you talking sources etc? Because part of me thinks you call it unconvincing only because you disagree with it. @smc - with that particular machine you're not slave per se as you would be using like a jp8080 with presets, but I suppose the slave end of the spectrum for the tb 303 would be to use it as a bassline, which is how the machine is described, and the subversion is to use it as something other than a bassline. I see your point.

what personally angers me is the use of arguments and fancy words that don't mean anything.
what really got to me most about your post was the claim that biotech is half art half science and saying that this new sort of music is somehow biological. what does it seriously have to do with biology? i'd say nothing at all.
IMO you can't just go throwing around claims and arguments like that without any true knowledge about the things you use to support your argument. then when someone tries to shoot them down, you don't even back it up. so IMO you shouldn't make such claims in the first place if you can't back them up. i could also come up with some theory and support it with random scientifical sounding stuff that has nothing to do with it. but i don't really see a point in it. and yes, i am personally annoyed by such irrational behavior.
i also found the socialist/capitalist comment quite amusing as that too IMO had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. it just seemed you pulled that out of nowhere to make your point more convincing.
i'm not opposed to discussing these kind of things, but your way of presenting your point is what i have a problem with.
oh and that indiana jones commercial too IMO had nothing to do with biology. it had to do with physics modelling, but biology, no way. i also didn't see anything revolutionary in it.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex It's not the toothbrush controlling you. You are the one willingly submitting to the intended purpose of the toothbrush. It's not a bad thing; you need to brush your teeth after all. The point is, there are other ways of using the toothbrush (cleaning pipes, maybe?).

It also makes a nice ink splatter...

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex It's not the toothbrush controlling you. You are the one willingly submitting to the intended purpose of the toothbrush. It's not a bad thing; you need to brush your teeth after all. The point is, there are other ways of using the toothbrush (cleaning pipes, maybe?).

I think part of the problem there is the use of the term slave, which generally (at least for me) makes someone think of being forced. If i choose to brush my teeth with it I am submitting to its intended use yes, but if i choose to tap out a beat with it while I gargle my listerine then im not exactly being revolutionary (or am I?, wicked!). Im just preforming a human act, creating a new tool. If computers make music in the future by using on algorithms and computers to produce sound (Again what i think your arguing here) then thats simply another instrument. Are you suggesting the method used to control the instrument will change, because that again isnt quiet revolutionary.

On a side note to nefardec that topic name really annoys me. If your intending to mislead people into reading your post thats pretty bothersome. If they dont care about the topic its not your duty to try and trick them into reading it. Additionally i have to agree with skip that i feel youve somewhat littered you dicussion with fancy words in a attempt to make the topic seem more complicated then it needs to be. Im assuming you didnt plan this post days in advance, and this use of words only leads to complicate the discussion uneccesrily.

Agree with above ^^ and skip etc. The whole thing is pretentious, not to the point and filled with totally arbitrary conclusions. It seems like there always has to be someone who has to disagree or somehow have a diverse stance just for the sake of it, throwing around words inappropriate in the context and various utter nonsense.

@Skip -

it's not biology per se, it's "biologic", from "bio-" (relating to life) and logic, from "logos". (word, truth, etc)

In other words, an organizational or constructive logic that comes from the way life organizes and constructs itself... are those words too big for you?

Organization which is flexible, adaptive, which evolves.

If you want me to be specific, I mean Bionics and Bioinformatics.

quote:

Bionics (also known as biomimetics, biognosis, biomimicry, or bionical creativity engineering) is the application of methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology.

quote:

The terms bioinformatics and computational biology are often used interchangeably. However bioinformatics more properly refers to the creation and advancement of algorithms, computational and statistical techniques, and theory to solve formal and practical problems inspired from the management and analysis of biological data.

Obviously I'm not refering to dissecting fetal pigs in Ms. Newman's 7th grade biology class.

Skip, the words don't mean anything to you for a couple of reasons:
-you don't really understand the words. and i'm not talking about in a dictionary sense. I select words based on their history and usage in other discourses. I select words which authors of related material use so that it is conceptually linked... does that make sense to you? Words have 'denotation' (dictionary definition) and 'connotation' (context, history, social meanings, etc). Obviously my message is misdirected if you don't understand the words I am choosing, but since this is a public forum, I hope that my language itself will filter the audience for me. Call it a Shibboleth.

- you're close-minded. can you maybe accept that I am perfectly serious and honest with how I write?

if this personally angers you, then why contribute anymore to the post. my personal motto is "do what makes you happy". Maybe you are masochistic? I prefer to think you just get some sort of rise out of 'fighting the bumbling idiot' or 'breaking down the rambling intellectual elitist' or something like that.

'fancy words'

Sorry guys, this is how I express myself even in person, when I am talking about something relatively deep like this. If you can't understand the words, then get a dictionary. This topic isn't about whether or not you can understand the terms. Furthermore, every word I use has been chosen carefully. I don't use "big words" for 'effect', I use them because of their meanings. You should be able to discern from what I write about that I am completely opposed to adornment and extravagance that masks true purpose. If you lived my lifestyle you would use 'fancy words' too.

Re: topic name, Admittedly, it's a bitch. I do, however, feel that music today (at least conceptually, not the actual 'sound' or result) is outdated and archaic. That is, how we think about music, or what our definition of music as a society is.

@mods - maybe you could change this topic title to "Is Music Obsolete As We Know It?" I tried changing it but it seems to have no effect.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I do, however, feel that music today (at least conceptually, not the actual 'sound' or result) is outdated and archaic.

I didn't know music was anything more than the actual sound, i must have missed something.

quote:

That is, how we think about music, or what our definition of music as a society is.

What does that even mean?
How do we think about music?
What is wrong with how we think about it?
How sould we think about it instead?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.