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-- music is obsolete (as we know it)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

Is Music Obsolete?

Is Music Obsolete?

Ok, this is going to be a bit long, though I tried to be as succint as possible given this is an internet forum about dance music. Maybe some of you will find this interesting or provocative. This post is in two parts: the first is exposition relative to architecture, the second is relative to dance music. this is not really an argument, but more of a question

As a student in a relatively connected architecture school I get to be around some cutting edge movements in design and to some degree, philosophy and epistemology....

That being said, these days in architecture, really since about 1997 but recently exploding there is large contigent of academics and practioners alike who have embraced emergent technology and new ideas about networks, globalization, social behavior, urbanism, etc.

Mainly what these ideas have in common is a complete submission to computer-driven processes and technologies.

In short, this means an utter denial of representative drawing and form-making, and an embrace of form generated by the system or the machine itself. This movement argues that 'modernism' in the classical sense (mies van der rohe, walter gropius, etc) was a half-baked movement that merely swapped aesthetic representation and 'style' from the decadent and decorative to the minimal and industrial without actually overturning society and thought.

These emergent architectures are called many times "parametric" architectures, because they are basically complex computer-generated systems with human-specified variables/parameters that control the specifics of the design. It revolutionary in the sense that these methods change the way one creates, the entire design process, and the discussion is in the process and not necessarily the outcome, because everything is essentially laid out beforehand as an intelligent system (as opposed to a society needing to figure out how to inhabit some arbitrary creation from man with a large ego)



Ok, so relative to electronic music:

I think in the near future there will be emergent musical technology that subverts the age-old definition of music as a discrete and representative form and structure.

The revolution in music, as with architecture, will come in the process of creation. Some of these processes will completely separate the musician from the musical outcome, by way of parametric, intelligent software.

Through machines we will create something truly organic

Even the most "cutting edge" music today really does nothing to change "music". The structures are all the same, the process for making minimal techno is the same as the process for making Filo & Peri - The Anthem. The sounds are simply an aesthetic.

Granted, the structure of music still maintains an important role in creating ideas about music, the idea of repetition and undifferentiation versus discrete sections, breakdowns, choruses, etc. All these structures though are age-old vestiges of classical culture..... (mabye it' s true that there is something archetypal and human then here, but i think that 'human' is no longer applicable in this age of utter globalization and machines)

the most innovative thing i have seen out of music recently is the machine called "Reactable" which is a parametric, group-oriented synthesis/performance/sampling device

I also feel like the internet has been completely removed from musical experience, for instance, if music of the future is generated from data in real time, parties of the future may be globally informed by the people attending them worldwide, and the actual movement and behavior of the people, rather than merely people reacting to discrete blocks of 'creation'. I think to some degree the DJ has begun this revolution with the idea of the mix, but true progress in the way of music has been consistently stunted by the capitalist notions of music business and music as a commodity, the "song" which is a vestige of old europe

If humanity ever overcomes the ills of capitalist commodification of music, I believe that we might be making music that is much more biologic, much more human in the sense that it is not created by one person and then consumed by another, but music which is created by machines which are parametrically controlled by the actual people who experience the music....

the future is a future of temporality and spectacle. the classical definition of art, architecture, and music as "pieces", discrete by DEFINITION, framed objects in the annals of history will die and give way to ephemeral musical reactions.


also i will say that this technology will be used for good or for evil. socialists will tout it as the end to bourgeois ideas about artwork. capitalists will worship it for its efficiency and ability to generate music without musicians and profitability...

architects were once considered artists, now they are increasingly seen as scientists as art and science become more and more the same

sidenote:
sampling in the 80s was a HUGE revolution in terms of musical innovation, which overturned age old ideas about ownership. sadly, sampling itself now has become a business, and the original idea is frowned upon... can't really think of anything else that has been revolutionary.

lyk srsly




weee ftp

The structure of the music would only change if people instruct these machines to create something that differs from todays music. So if the originators of the ideas remain the same (humans) i don't see why/how these new tools/machines would bring about a revolution in the structure of music.

what i mean is

such a revolution would mean that one produces music that is a direct result of the technology used to create it, and NOT to achieve some kind of 'effect' or 'atmosphere' or 'style. of course it would have to be a human initiative.

more or less what techno began as. techno however quickly became seen as a "fashion" or "style" when it was imported to europe, and people were more excited about things it evoked than how it was made.


see what i mean is, you can take any sequencer and replace samples with a different set of samples or patches, and maybe change the tempo, and you can instantly transform it from an epic trance track to an electrohouse track. so what i am suggesting is maybe a return to a time where the process of making music is more closely related to its sound.

This is what happens when people take one too many pills or spend too much time talking with Tina

That kind of technology is actually supposed to be coming in the new Spore game. Brian Eno is supposed to be helping to design a process-based music generation program for the game that uses a few prerecorded segments to create music that evolves from the simple beginnings to the more complex ending. There are no songs in that soundtrack, there is just the soundtrack.

I think it's pretty neat stuff, and has interesting repercussions for the EDM scene, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec what i mean is such a revolution would mean that one produces music that is a direct result of the technology used to create it, and NOT to achieve some kind of 'effect' or 'atmosphere' or 'style. of course it would have to be a human initiative. more or less what techno began as. techno however quickly became seen as a "fashion" or "style" when it was imported to europe, and people were more excited about things it evoked than how it was made. see what i mean is, you can take any sequencer and replace samples with a different set of samples or patches, and maybe change the tempo, and you can instantly transform it from an epic trance track to an electrohouse track. so what i am suggesting is maybe a return to a time where the process of making music is more closely related to its sound.

But as soon as someone discovers that the tools can be used to create something that differs from the sound people associate with the tools, you have the same problem all over again. And i say problem because you made it sound like one, i don't really see what the problem is in all of this. And i don't think the line of reasoning behind the techno example, or other similar examples one could think of, is valid. The fact that many perceive the original techno as a typical sound of that technology doesn't make it a more direct result of the technology than any other music created with it. And it's not like the techno pioneers were the first ones to create music with electronic instruments.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex That kind of technology is actually supposed to be coming in the new Spore game. Brian Eno is supposed to be helping to design a process-based music generation program for the game that uses a few prerecorded segments to create music that evolves from the simple beginnings to the more complex ending. There are no songs in that soundtrack, there is just the soundtrack. I think it's pretty neat stuff, and has interesting repercussions for the EDM scene, I think.

It's not really a new concept and it's not very complicated. Brian Eno has constructed music this way before, even as far back as on Ambient 1. All you have to do is take two or more instruments or sections of instruments that in some way evolve and move in a non-rhythmical way and not in sync with each other, and just let them repeat over and over. They will move in and out, begin and end at different points in relation to each other every time they repeat. Depending on the used material you may have to listen weeks or months before you hear the exact same variation you heard before. Back in the days they did this by playing different tape loops of different lenghts simoultaneously. Since they were not synchronized they would begin and end at different points in relation to each other every time they repeated and new combinations would arise every cycle of the loop for a long long time.

Read much Macluhan, nefardec?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec see what i mean is, you can take any sequencer and replace samples with a different set of samples or patches, and maybe change the tempo, and you can instantly transform it from an epic trance track to an electrohouse track. so what i am suggesting is maybe a return to a time where the process of making music is more closely related to its sound.

Wow, I can't believe you're minimizing something so subjective into the sum of its minimal objectivity.

YES, of course there are certain constants that make a genre, and of course technologies shape the growth and development of it. There's no "going back", no matter how much pseudointellectual ism jizzum you spill. Sorry mate...

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec see what i mean is, you can take any sequencer and replace samples with a different set of samples or patches, and maybe change the tempo, and you can instantly transform it from an epic trance track to an electrohouse track. so what i am suggesting is maybe a return to a time where the process of making music is more closely related to its sound.

Can you really though? I think that's a gross assumption.

lol, good discussion...kind of. Lets give the respect where its due...God gave us the ability to create beautiful things. Some use it as it was intented and some try to munipulate that intention. Weve all heard some terrifying, darn near nightmarish music but why complicate it? In its simplest form it posseses a strong ability to change peoples emotions. Stick to that philosiphy Costanza and we will enjoy it that much more. \0/

quote:

Originally posted by SMC It's not really a new concept and it's not very complicated. Brian Eno has constructed music this way before, even as far back as on Ambient 1. All you have to do is take two or more instruments or sections of instruments that in some way evolve and move in a non-rhythmical way and not in sync with each other, and just let them repeat over and over. They will move in and out, begin and end at different points in relation to each other every time they repeat. Depending on the used material you may have to listen weeks or months before you hear the exact same variation you heard before. Back in the days they did this by playing different tape loops of different lenghts simoultaneously. Since they were not synchronized they would begin and end at different points in relation to each other every time they repeated and new combinations would arise every cycle of the loop for a long long time.

This is actually completely different from what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a computer process that writes music dependent on a set of variables using a certain set of prerecorded material. It may begin simply, such as the desynching you're talking about, but the actual nature of the music changes and becomes more complex as the music progresses.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex This is actually completely different from what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a computer process that writes music dependent on a set of variables using a certain set of prerecorded material. It may begin simply, such as the desynching you're talking about, but the actual nature of the music changes and becomes more complex as the music progresses.

I was just refering to the basic principle. This Spore thing will probably show it being employed in a much more complex system with added increase/decrease of actual musical elements perhaps and so forth. That i don't doubt.

This is hilarious. You downgrades watch too many movies. Music is a God given gift for enjoyment. It will never and i repeat never move someone (when it is created by a robot) the same way it moves someone when it is created by a human. Why are you wasting your time? Common sense goes a long way. You all have it, use it

quote:

I'm talking about a computer process that writes music dependent on a set of variables using a certain set of prerecorded material

As am I. that's idea of 'parametric' composition.

quote:

This is hilarious. You downgrades watch too many movies. Music is a God given gift for enjoyment. It will never and i repeat never move someone (when it is created by a robot) the same way it moves someone when it is created by a human. Why are you wasting your time? Common sense goes a long way. You all have it, use it

'You' downgrades should think more.

This isn't a discussion on whether or not machines make music, nor is it about gods...

Guess what - and here's some common sense for you. Humans make machines, and machines make music. So therefore humans always make music....no one is refuting that.

What's an issue here is whether the process is transparent or opaque, whether the ends reveal the means or not.

@SMC - Ok, sure there have always been the sort of autonomy experiments in minimalism. Steve Reich's Phase pieces for instance are exactly that. For the sake of those unfamiliar with Reich, he wrote some pieces for violin and piano which consisted of two live players playing the same repeated phrase/rhythm at two slightly different tempos. The resulting piece was one in which the moving musical element was not what was written or even played, but what was a result of the process of playing, it was the phasing of the instruments combined with their tones.

and of course you have 4'33"...

But this is still only a few experiments in history, what I am interested in is a technology (read: software) that inspires every day people, ie contemporary larry heards and derrick mays, to generate electronic music with parametric methods, as opposed to layering together sounds to create an effect.

Now, given there will always be people who try to 'simulate' and 'replicate' and 'represent' feelings, styles, etc even with this technology. However, I think these are obsolete musical goals, relevant 200-400 years ago. I am just asking the question - isn't it time for an utter revolution in the way we think about music? not in the sound, not in whether it's urban or pop or sparkly or grey, but maybe music of our time ought to be more biologic, that is have a sort of life code of its own or relevent to the information age, algorithmic (that doesn't necessarily mean repetitive...)

i mean this is an age where biology and industry have combined to create "biotech", which is as much an art as a science -

outside technology always affects art

important technologies will be:

fluid dynamics
biomechanics
nanotech
knot theory
parametric design

http://www.mh-portfolio.com/Algorit...cture/spi0.html


Related to this, I have also started to look into a new paradigm for storing audio information through mathematical vector data as opposed to the archaic tables of periodic amplitudes which we use now...


@Ishkur - No, most of my exposure to these ideas come by way of architectural publications, but thank you for dropping me the name, I will have to do some reading for sure.

lol. this is hilarious.
"a new type of music, which is parametric and biological and made by machines" OMG!
seriously wtf are you on about? machines making music according to some parameters made by some human? what's the point in that? would anyone be willing to listen to the crap the machines would spew out? i seriously doubt it.
and wtf does this have to do with biology? do you know what biology is?
and biotechnology is not art, it's science, just science.
oh and lol at the communist/capitalist thing too. communists will try to use this new biological parametric music to make bad things as communists are bad bad people. and capitalists will try to fuck everyone else over and use it to make money. OMG! it's gonna be like in the sixties. we'll have a new balance of fear. you yanks should watch out, the soviet union might attack with "biological parametric music weapons"!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Can you really though? I think that's a gross assumption.

Technically yes, but it'd sound like shit.

skip, good job, that was pretty funny



remember this isn't about "sounding good". That's mere fashion.

Do you think people, even the people on the cutting edge of music in the 16th century would have thought acid house sounded good?

Gothic architecture was once high-tech for an example the other way around... time and fashion are so relative.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec skip, good job, that was pretty funny remember this isn't about "sounding good". That's mere fashion. Do you think people, even the people on the cutting edge of music in the 16th century would have thought acid house sounded good? Gothic architecture was once high-tech for an example the other way around... time and fashion are so relative.

i seriously think what you're posting here is a bunch of senseless bullshit, just a bunch of fancy words thrown together. i don't think it makes any sense at all. do you really think machines themselves (with the aid of some programmers parameters) would be able to create music that would interest people (other than the short while before the novelty has worn off)? and i still don't see what this has to do with biology or how biotechnology is art.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @Ishkur - No, most of my exposure to these ideas come by way of architectural publications, but thank you for dropping me the name, I will have to do some reading for sure.

He talks about the same thing, only with ALL media, not just music.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec contemporary larry heards and derrick mays

They we're pioneers of styles right, a new sound? And sounds are just a matter of fashion and/or aesthetics you said, so why were they so revolutionary according to you?





And in direct response to your initial statement. Music as we know it is demanded, supplied and enjoyed by the vast majority of all music listeners on our planet, or maybe even by all listeners, because if one really dislikes music to such an extent to state that it is obsolete one would have no real interest in listening to it. So your statement is simply false, whether something is obsolete or not is not a matter of opinion. And music as we know it is evidently not obsolete. End of discussion.

"music is obsolete" was intentionally loaded so people would click the topic. it's like putting "hot 19 year old nudes" or "peace not apartheid" in the subject, nothing more.

skip, what can i say - you're entitled to your opinion. if you don't want to contribute anything besides calling my ideas bullshit, i suggest you go waste your time in another place.

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.

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...


Guys, if you think what I am writing is bullshit, fine, go ahead and take a shit on the thread once, but stop being trolls and continuing to do it. What's your motivation for telling me my ideas are bullshit anyways, does it make you feel big or something?

Seriously - i am genuinely interested in these topics and others might be as well.

I couldn't be arsed to read absolutely everything you said, but as for machines creating music on their own without much input from humans (the machines being the ones responsible for the global sequencing), i don't think it's a completely nuts idea - it might very well be possible in the future. I have some difficulties however in imaging it taking over the more traditional way of making music, but i suppose if most pop music nowadays relies on electronic sounds (something unthinkable a couple years back), it's not completely unlikely.

Actually I think this concept is quite near from the "musique concr�te" idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te

This is not a new aim for musicians and/or scientists, an example has just came accross my mind: Jacques de Vaucanson.

Music by machines would be only illusion, just like when we look at dolphins and think they are laughing.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec "music is obsolete" was intentionally loaded so people would click the topic. it's like putting "hot 19 year old nudes" or "peace not apartheid" in the subject, nothing more. skip, what can i say - you're entitled to your opinion. if you don't want to contribute anything besides calling my ideas bullshit, i suggest you go waste your time in another place. 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. 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... Guys, if you think what I am writing is bullshit, fine, go ahead and take a shit on the thread once, but stop being trolls and continuing to do it. What's your motivation for telling me my ideas are bullshit anyways, does it make you feel big or something? Seriously - i am genuinely interested in these topics and others might be as well.

well i for one have problems with bullshit claims that aren't backed up in any way. i see no point in what you're saying and you're not answering any of my questions or backing up your statements. do you really think you can get a good discussion going if you're not going to reply to the people who don't agree with you?
and what's this about allowing people who disagree to post only once?

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