|
A real laptop symphony? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Every single genre is subject to classical arrangements. |
Every genre of music is subject to arrangements by each and every other genre of music. This, however, does not necessarily justify the existence of said arrangements. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Every genre of music is subject to arrangements by each and every other genre of music. This, however, does not necessarily justify the existence of said arrangements. |
Does it mean that every single classical arrangement is the self-evident inferiority complex of all non-classical music? So why assume that dance music is trying to "prove" itself by submitting to such arrangements?
What happens when dance music remixes the 19th Century orchestra? By the same logic, is this a sign of empowerment on the part of the machine, its ability to subsume other genres? I suppose there is another autonomous "must" as to why dance music should not do that either.
For the record, I never believe in "Let good music speak for itself". That is a slander. What I believe in is that we should let good music be created by whatever means, not place restrictive demands on the creative process. Electronic music is the end of the process and the triumph of the product, and yet Nefardec is obsessed with the creative process. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| ^ I agree with SYSTEM-J that the "prove itself" bit is being "read into" these kinds of performances, that it's not necessarily always present or the motivation behind them. While I'm not generally a fan of symphonic orchestrations of dance music and predictably didn't like the ones posted, I don't think they need to represent an "inferiority complex," either. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Did I say that? My problem is not with finding meanings external to the sound in music (although Walter Pater wrote in The Renaissance that in music, more than any other art form, the form and the matter are almost impossible to distinguish)
|
Relative to other art forms, I'd agree, but it's still bull, especially in the age of sampling, cybernetics, and circuitry. There is a reason why Juan Atkins calls himself "Model 500" and it's not because it is related to the form of the music... I would be the first to admit the intrinsic formal power of music (and i do), but today's music has so many undeniable additional cultural layers. Throughout history iconography and mythology also played undeniable roles in music.
Have you looked at Jeff Mills 'x102 discovers the rings of saturn'? the record is etched and cut in the pattern of the actual rings of saturn. Mills says:"You have to visually describe it on the vinyl - that's what constitutes an X project...the label itself is the actual planet, the grooves are the actual rings, so in a certain way you can give the impression that the grooves are the rings of saturn"
My point is simple. Music is generally inseparable from myth-making, as a form of human language particularly suited to describing or giving existence to mankind's highest aspirations. It's clear in nearly every aspect of it that the mythology of techno is firmly rooted in the technology and technological society which created it.
and i truly believe that techno's (and electronic music's) strength is derived from its technological nature, the ability to synthesize patterns, rhythms, frequencies, dynamics that are unplayable/unimaginable by humans, which allows humans to cybernetically enhance themselves. prior to the invention of the tb303, who could have imagined the sound of acid? why should we make an orchestra try to emulate a juno 106? the innovation in techno came from taking these instruments that were meant to sound like real world instruments, and producing music using sounds that you were never supposed to hear! Coming from a machine, collective consciousness has been augmented. We now have the capacity to imagine such sounds and rhythms because the machines revealed them to us. the prometheus effect...musical illumination.
| quote: |
I see nobody else on TA make more grand statements about music than you, always must, must, must.
Here's a pretentiously quoted riposte for you:
"There is no must in art because art is free." - Wassily Kandinsky |
i challenge you to find the 'must' in anything I wrote. My statement was no more grand than your statement about my supposed making of grand statements...
why can't you just say 'i disagree', instead of trying to personally attack me?
ps here is a previous discussion on this topic, in which i participated:
http://infinitestatemachine.com/2009/02/18/techno-as-composition-the-antidote-to-the-soul-less-charge/ |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | | Originally posted by nefardec and i truly believe that techno's (and electronic music's) strength is derived from its technological nature, the ability to synthesize patterns, rhythms, frequencies, dynamics that are unplayable/unimaginable by humans, which allows humans to cybernetically enhance themselves. prior to the invention of the tb303, who could have imagined the sound of acid? why should we make an orchestra try to emulate a juno 106? the innovation in techno came from taking these instruments that were meant to sound like real world instruments, and producing music using sounds that you were never supposed to hear! Coming from a machine, collective consciousness has been augmented. We now have the capacity to imagine such sounds and rhythms because the machines revealed them to us. the prometheus effect...musical illumination. |
Quite clearly a techno track performed by an orchestra has ceased to be merely techno, or perhaps techno at all. I thought you weren't a fan of genres, anyway? Or even of seperating dance music from any other kind of music? I'm very happy your manifestos are not universal, because for everything you have said you are merely prescribing a list of "musts" for techno as a genre.
Why should we make an orchestra try to emulate a Juno 106? A flawed question in the first because the orchestra isn't emulating or even trying to, it's replacing. But why should it do so? Because the result could sound brilliant. Would you deny the creation of brilliant music because of a manifesto?
Electronic music started to die as soon as it gained a history. As soon as it gained legends and heroes and codified itself a list of behaviours it began to lose the creativity and invention that drove it. If it wants to evolve there should never, ever be any mythology to techno because once that happens techno becomes tied to its past rather than to an unwritten future, tied to what it should do rather than what it can, tied to precedent rather than potential. And I say: that.
| quote: | | why can't you just say 'i disagree', instead of trying to personally attack me? |
I'm not attacking any more of you than what I disagree with. I think you're a cool guy, one of the more interesting members of TA and I like your DJ sets a lot. What I'm attacking is the notion that we should pre-emptively judge any orchestral arrangement of an electronic track as an anxious attempt to "prove" electronic music. That kind of pre-emptive assumption is clearly born from a manifesto that influences your judgement of music that doesn't even exist yet. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Quite clearly a techno track performed by an orchestra has ceased to become merely techno, or perhaps techno at all. I thought you weren't a fan of genres, anyway? Or even of seperating dance music from any other kind of music? I'm very happy your manifestos are not universal, because for everything you have said you are merely prescribing a list of "musts" for techno as a genre.
Electronic music started to die as soon as it gained a history. As soon as it gained legends and heroes and codified itself a list of behaviours it began to lose the creativity and invention that drove it. If it wants to evolve there should never, ever be any mythology to techno because once that happens techno becomes tied to its past rather than to an unwritten future, tied to what it should do rather than what it can, tied to precedent rather than potential. And I say: that.
Why should we make an orchestra try to emulate a Juno 106? A flawed question in the first because the orchestra isn't emulating or even trying to, it's replacing.
|
Who said anything about genre? Techno, since it was pioneered has been a imbued with a philosophical position on the relationship between man and machine, between score and orchestra, and simultaneously a set of techniques for making music.
Obviously I would not call it 'techno' anymore - your point is silly because it was obviously techno to begin with, and I am talking about 'orchestrating' something that is obviously techno to begin with.
It's not like Mills is creating new music with the philharmonic orchestra - if this were so I'd be inclined to agree. But instead what is happening is someone is trying to arrange some oboes and clarinets and trumpets to sound like the synths in "The Bells". This is what I mean by emulating. And in fact, I think the orchestral instruments deprive most of the original tracks of their vital energy and brazen offensiveness.
Regarding mythology: You are mixing up 'history' with 'mythology' a little too much. Mythology is not necessarily historical. Generally mythology is regarded as being anti-history, in the realm of archetypes. I agree that 'fetishizing the past' is not productive.
But there are purely mythological things such as the idea that electronic music can cybernetically enhance people through an aural interface, there are mythological values of outer and inner space, etc. By 'mythologize' I do not mean 'put detroit on a pedestal', i mean 'believe in a 'unwritten future'', etc.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
But why should it do so? Because the result could sound brilliant. Would you deny the creation of brilliant music because of a manifesto? |
of course not - don't be ridiculous. i said "i have an aversion to techno being played by a 19th century orchestra" i've yet to hear something brilliant done this way, but I don't deny its possibility. My aversion, like I described above, is mainly about the way physical orchestral arrangements simply 'emulate' a sound that in its origin was made to be anything but physical or orchestral. if that sounds awesome, then that's great, but like I said, I haven't heard anything brilliant yet, and this is my opinion of why it seems to fall short.
Now on the other hand, one can use machines to manipulate and arrange live or recorded audio signals from orchestras. I have heard some really interesting stuff come from this. (carsten nicolai, carl craig & moritz von oswald to name a few)
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not attacking any more of you than what I disagree with. I think you're a cool guy, one of the more interesting members of TA and I like your DJ sets a lot. What I'm attacking is the notion that we should pre-emptively judge any orchestral arrangement of an electronic track as an anxious attempt to "prove" electronic music. That kind of pre-emptive assumption is clearly born from a manifesto that influences your judgement of music that doesn't even exist yet. |
Ok, your assumption is that this is a pre-emptive assumption on my part. Here are some things that Jeff Mills has said regarding this performance, or that the record label tresor has said:
regarding re-creation/emulation: (from jeff mills)
For many years, I wasn't convinced that I could re-create or perform the intricate sequences that I could produce in the studio for a live setting. I did and still feel that there needs to be a way of recording, not only what notes/sounds I'm selecting but, also what I'm thinking at the moment of creation. I generally compose music in a step-by-step motion. This motion could last for 2 minutes or 2 days. In this way, what I'm trying to capture in the music is my feeling at that time. To re-create this in a living setting would be something similar to a long marathon Keith Jarrett performance, only you would be able to hear the thought process. When the idea of having an orchestra perform the compositions came about, I thought this would be a great chance to re-create with the help of skilled/trained musicians. Rather than pre-prepare my music in a computer, the idea of creating in real-time within the live performance was appealing.
regarding mythology: (from jeff mills)
"There have always been so many questions put forth about just who we humans are and how we got here. Seemingly shipwrecked on gigantic floating rocks we call continents, humans have pondered these questions since the realisation of our own existence. The more we explore these questions, the more we must ask ourselves the single most important question: the question of 'why?'. Why are we here? Are we here by design or by consequence? In our busy lives, we have the few chances to occasionally look up into the blue sky. When we do, the sense of our world of blue ends when the blue fades to black (or is it really black?). There are a few of us who believe the opposite, that the human life begins just past the border of our imaginations. Whichever way you hold the truth, one thing is a commonality, we believe the answer lies beyond ourselves. So the questions persist.
The Blue Potential serves as just two of the many mysteries within our existence: the deep blue sky and the deep blue sea. Both vast universes of unknown answers to questions we've yet to realise.
regarding 'proving something; (from jeff mills)
At the first rehearsal, the feeling was very pleasant, possibly because the musicians could clearly understand that I am there as the composer/writer of all the music and not just there only as Techno DJ.
also regarding 'legitimacy of techno' (from jeff mills)
I think the most important attributes of Electronic/Techno Music are too often ignored. Things like music with "meaning" and "substance" are the only factors that make the Electronic/Techno Music survive for centuries to come. I think it's not so important how Electronic/Techno Music is created but more so, why it is created. Unfortunately, most of Electronic/Techno Music is generally considered as music that is dispensable. Even the independent dance music industry itself now has this "get-it-while-it's-hot" mentality. At this time, world-wide journalists that routinely report on Electronic/Techno Music lack the attention to ask crucial questions that might enlighten, instead they look for reasons to reinforce what they want to believe. This type of journalism does very little to bring forth the truths about Electronic/Techno Music. It's this stigma that makes it very hard for important music to surface and/or to be recognised
regarding 'genre' and 'history': (this is from the label)
"This special limited edition DVD/CD package from Tresor represents a historic moment in the history of techno music. In July 2005 Jeff Mills performed a single live outdoor concert with the Montpellier Philharmonic Orchestra, at the foot of the Pont du Gard bridge in southern France, a World Heritage classified site."
regarding overanalyzing music: (from jeff mills)
If journalists were to ask musicians, how and why they do what they do, we would understand much more about how things come to be. But what I read in the press is that they don’t venture into these kind of questions. Why does your music sound the way it does? Why did you choose these keys as opposed to those keys? But they’re rarely asked. So that gives you the impression that the we don’t really care to know the real reasons why the music is the way it is. Why techno is different from hiphop, etc. We don’t really want to know, because if we did we would ask.
on mythology and philosophy of techno:
Well, there’s a reason why one would choose electronic music over more conventional type of music in the first place. So we have to start from there. Is it because it’s easy? Is it because technology has made it so any housewife could programme a keyboard? Or is it a certain type of membership, some type of pass, some type of symbolic gesture that you want to be part of the future of it all? Or the term electronic, or Techno, gives you some cachet, that you are working in this frame. It doesn’t really matter what you produce, it’s that you’re using this shape, this template.
on process:
what we did, we took about 15 tracks that i made over the past 15 years - and some of these tracks were just released on 12"- we took these tracks and then we translated them to sheet music for an orchestra of 80 people to perform.
this is a good interview with jeff mills touching on many of these topics:
http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/2035/?pageno=1 |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by enydo
FITE FITE FITE |
:stongue: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Who said anything about genre? |
You have. If you aren't talking about genre when you say "techno" then what are you talking about?
"techno's (and electronic music's) strength is derived from its technological nature"
"the innovation in techno came from taking these instruments that were meant to sound like real world instruments, and producing music using sounds that you were never supposed to hear!"
"techno does not need to 'prove' itself as music by being rearranged for orchestra. techno gets all its strength from the machine itself"
Don't give me any techno-as-a-philosophy sidesteps because, especially in that second quote, you're talking very specifically about techno as music, as a canon of music: as a genre. If you are to give "techno" a set of philosophies, mythologies and manifestos you are to limit "techno" to a body of work so that it has philosophies, mythologies and manifestos unique to it. That is techno as a genre.
If you start giving techno or electronic music a set of specific philosophical or creative manifestos or ideals you are differentiating it on a level of process from other music, which is splitting music down into different tribes with different intentions. That is defining genres, if only by ideals.
| quote: | | of course not - don't be ridiculous. i said "i have an aversion to techno being played by a 19th century orchestra" i've yet to hear something brilliant done this way, but I don't deny its possibility. My aversion, like I described above, is mainly about the way physical orchestral arrangements simply 'emulate' a sound that in its origin was made to be anything but physical or orchestral. |
If that is the main reason you are averse, why did it not crop up until two posts after your original claim of aversion? The very reason I started this argument is because your original statement had nothing to do with sound and everything to with mythologies/manifestos/cognitive ideas divorced from the actual sound:
"i have an aversion to techno being played by 19th century orchestras. techno does not need to 'prove' itself as music by being rearranged for orchestra. techno gets all its strength from the machine itself"
| quote: | | Ok, your assumption is that this is a pre-emptive assumption on my part. Here are some things that Jeff Mills has said regarding this performance, or that the record label tresor has said: |
I disagree that any of those statements definitely amount to an inferiority complex on the part of Mills or techno in general. I own that album and I watched the documentary included with it, and I never got the impression Mills felt a desire to validate his canon by doing the Blue Potential. His quote about the disposibility of dance music sounds a lot like many statements you have made, and yet you're claiming that Mills, by saying them, thinks the opposite of you in this regard.
Besides, when was this about Mills in particular? I've not mentioned him once directly to you. This is a thread about PVD, and your original statement does not define any specifics or clauses. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
To quote the Rev. Jesse Jackson, as sampled by Primal Scream:
"Today on this program you will hear gospel,
And rhythm and blues, and jazz
All those are just labels
We know that music is music"
I don't see the value in saying that music can't be anything it is. Music has always been about one artist building on the work of others to create something new. Is it "bad" if piano is used on a techno track? I don't think progress is necessarily always forward looking - most of my favorite pieces of music look back at the past. |
|
|
| ravenrg84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Two things:
a) What the hell are him and the guy on the virus actually doing? I can't hear their input. Granted, I'm at work and only had a cursory listen, but it sounds like a regular symphonic performance to me.
b) van Dyk looks happy. Really happy. At all his trance gigs he's a miserable prick. I think perhaps he realises what idiots his trance crowds are and that he's in a ty genre anyway. |
wow, why all this hate for pvd? |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You have. If you aren't talking about genre when you say "techno" then what are you talking about? |
see below;
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Don't give me any techno-as-a-philosophy sidesteps because, especially in that second quote, you're talking very specifically about techno as music, as a canon of music: as a genre. If you are to give "techno" a set of philosophies, mythologies and manifestos you are to limit "techno" to a body of work so that it has philosophies, mythologies and manifestos unique to it. That is techno as a genre.
|
there is no sidestep... this is what I mean when I use the word techno. the philosophy includes sound-worlds as well. you're right about the 'limiting' - things that do not at least refer to this sound world really aren't techno. and this has nothing to do with genre, to say otherwise would be like saying that 'imperialism' is a genre.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If you start giving techno or electronic music a set of specific philosophical or creative manifestos or ideals you are differentiating it on a level of process from other music, which is splitting music down into different tribes with different intentions. That is defining genres, if only by ideals.
|
no, it's not. this is hilarious. so is capitalism now a genre?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If that is the main reason you are averse, why did it not crop up until two posts after your original claim of aversion? The very reason I started this argument is because your original statement had nothing to do with sound and everything to with mythologies/manifestos/cognitive ideas divorced from the actual sound: |
because i didn't expect you to hang onto that so dearly! lol
ideas are never divorced from the actual sound! this is my whole point.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I disagree that any of those statements definitely amount to an inferiority complex on the part of Mills or techno in general. I own that album and I watched the documentary included with it, and I never got the impression Mills felt a desire to validate his canon by doing the Blue Potential. His quote about the disposibility of dance music sounds a lot like many statements you have made, and yet you're claiming that Mills, by saying them, thinks the opposite of you in this regard.
Besides, when was this about Mills in particular? I've not mentioned him once directly to you. This is a thread about PVD, and your original statement does not define any specifics or clauses. |
fair enough - it's not definitive. maybe i will email mills and ask him "did you see the blue potential project as an opportunity to establish electronic music as a musical tradition equal to the classical tradition" i think this would be a great interview question.
but even if it's not definitive, i think this statement is almost there:
| quote: | | At the first rehearsal, the feeling was very pleasant, possibly because the musicians could clearly understand that I am there as the composer/writer of all the music and not just there only as Techno DJ |
This is about Jeff Mills because he did pretty much exactly the same thing as what PvD is doing. Early in the thread i posted mills as an example. Since mills has talked more about this, I find it more interesting to discuss these matters in relation to him. |
|
|
|
|
