|
A real laptop symphony? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| enydo |
 |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
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. |
So we should read it that you have an aversion to a philosophy being played by an orchestra? Credible...
| quote: | | no, it's not. this is hilarious. so is capitalism now a genre? |
Capitalism is not, to my knowledge, a musical genre. You could define it as a social genre if you want to be creative. By defining a body of art by a set of ideals or philosophies you are still defining a genre, you are merely doing so by what Frederik Jameson defines as the semantic tendency in genre classification, where a canon is embodied by its underlying sophistic essence, rather than the syntactic tendency, whereby it is defined merely by observed structures or components.
| quote: | 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. |
How can you hear in the OP video the idea that PVD, of all people, is insecure about the worth of his music? How could you have heard it in the Blue Potential, without reconstructing it from a collection of suggestive quotes external to the music? How can you say so confidently that the signifier of dance music and an orchestra signifies an insecurity about the worth of a genre?
This is what Walter Pater was referring to: every single example you have used of music carrying a meaning beyond merely its sound has referred to something external to the music: an interview, the artist name, the surface of the vinyl. All of that information essential to ascribing such precise meanings to the music is external. You do not need any of them to hear a piece of music and experience an emotional or cognitive reaction. I don't think you've provided any proof than any soundwave can even remotely suggest an inferiority complex in a musical genre (or philosophy) without being coloured by words or symbols external to it.
I'm also not letting this go because, if I hadn't started this argument, we would never have heard your "main reason" for this aversion, which leads me to believe you're backtracking on your original statement.
| quote: | | 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. |
Once again, what Mills has hinted at in questions specific to him is not representative of PVD in any way, or indeed all existing or future orchestral arrangements of electronic pieces. What Mills said in an interview will be forgotten long before the music is, and when that happens the music reverts to being its own signifier and signified. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So we should read it that you have an aversion to a philosophy being played by an orchestra? Credible... |
yes, specifically a philosophy towards technology. that is, technology should produce the sound for the sound of the technology itself, not to attempt to emulate sound which is unable to be emulated. also, that the composition and performance of the music be created by some automatic process.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Capitalism is not, to my knowledge, a musical genre. You could define it as a social genre if you want to be creative. By defining a body of art by a set of ideals or philosophies you are still defining a genre, you are merely doing so by what Frederik Jameson defines as the semantic tendency in genre classification, where a canon is embodied by its underlying sophistic essence, rather than the syntactic tendency, whereby it is defined merely by observed structures or components. |
Why are you so fixated on genre? I am trying to do away with genre. My point is that techno is an 'ism' just like capitalism, and not a musical genre. I don't believe in musical genres - they are only marketing tools. This is an idealistic point of view, but as you hinted at earlier, the moment music gets tied down with history (and with generic tendencies IMO) it starts to die.
This supposed schism between 'sophistic essence' and 'syntactic tendency' is the precise reason for so much ty electronic music IMO. They ought to be one and the same. The sophistic essence is the raison d'etre of the syntax, and the syntax reflects the sophistic essence. you said, yourself, that music itself is a signifier. so what is it signifying? why can't the syntactic tendency be a signifier of sophistic essence?
it's as if you try to classify my responses as genres as well!
smearing on a canvas surely says something beyond "this is on a canvas"
| quote: |
How can you hear in the OP video the idea that PVD, of all people, is insecure about the worth of his music? How could you have heard it in the Blue Potential, without reconstructing it from a collection of suggestive quotes external to the music? How can you say so confidently that the signifier of dance music and an orchestra signifies an insecurity about the worth of a genre?
This is what Walter Pater was referring to: every single example you have used of music carrying a meaning beyond merely its sound has referred to something external to the music: an interview, the artist name, the surface of the vinyl. All of that information essential to ascribing such precise meanings to the music is external. You do not need any of them to hear a piece of music and experience an emotional or cognitive reaction. I don't think you've provided any proof than any soundwave can even remotely suggest an inferiority complex in a musical genre (or philosophy) without being coloured by words or symbols external to it.
|
I didn't hear it in the music itself. You're being ridiculous here. You should know that a recording itself is just varying levels of electrical power over time. This has no intrinsic meaning. Any meaning at all, whether it is an emotional response, conrad's 'heart of darkness', or philosophical intent, is subject to the interpretation of the beholder.
As if playing bits of holst's 'Jupiter' next to pieces of a PvD production means nothing. There is an obvious implication here.
regarding the 'external information'. I don't see why you consider this external? It comes from one mind, one hand. I mean I see why it would be convenient for the sake of argument to consider it external, but realistically... i am guessing you never make artwork, but only criticize it. i've spent my whole (short) life making artwork, whether music, painting, design, architecture, etc, so this is my perspective.
regarding insecurity - all i have to say is, look at the size of his dj booth compared with what he's doing. he only needs a laptop, lol. he's not even playing the virus, just easypiano arrangements on his midi controller (and i wonder if they arent pre-recorded)
| quote: |
I'm also not letting this go because, if I hadn't started this argument, we would never have heard your "main reason" for this aversion, which leads me to believe you're backtracking on your original statement.
Once again, what Mills has hinted at in questions specific to him is not representative of PVD in any way, or indeed all existing or future orchestral arrangements of electronic pieces. What Mills said in an interview will be forgotten long before the music is, and when that happens the music reverts to being its own signifier and signified. |
lol, thank you for your wonderful service to this venerable community. on behalf of everyone i'd like to thank you for leading the righteous way. it's clear you have some kind of personal crusade against the impassioned manner in which I write. guess what, no one else gives a . but i do appreciate the more constructive arguments you make.
explain how I'm backtracking? let me say it again: I have an aversion to techno reproduced by live orchestra.
your last point is good, but again, the signifier really has no meaning in itself, it is only in the receiver, in other words, it will be subject to interpretation based on the culture that interprets it. there are certain visceral responses and archetypes n music that may survive such a time period.
has rimsky-korsakoff's 'procession of the nobles' ceased to be pompous after all this time? what is this time period of forgetfulness of which you speak?
why do you think musical language lasts longer than other forms of language, such as things that mills says, and others read?
ps - is that jameson in his 'postmodernism' book? |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| Hey guys...its just...techno...lol! |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
yes, specifically a philosophy towards technology. that is, technology should produce the sound for the sound of the technology itself, not to attempt to emulate sound which is unable to be emulated. also, that the composition and performance of the music be created by some automatic process...
Why are you so fixated on genre? I am trying to do away with genre. My point is that techno is an 'ism' just like capitalism, and not a musical genre. I don't believe in musical genres - they are only marketing tools. This is an idealistic point of view, but as you hinted at earlier, the moment music gets tied down with history (and with generic tendencies IMO) it starts to die. |
I don't see what you're doing as doing away with genre at all. I see you codifying a list of "musts" to be considered a genre. That the genre is defined by philosophy does not preclude it from being a genre. As you said earlier- if techno is played on an orchestra it stops being techno. So why should it matter that techno gain its power from the machine? If the product is no longer techno through an alteration of its philosophies it just becomes music. Why should you have an aversion to it?
| quote: | | This supposed schism between 'sophistic essence' and 'syntactic tendency' is the precise reason for so much ty electronic music IMO. They ought to be one and the same. The sophistic essence is the raison d'etre of the syntax, and the syntax reflects the sophistic essence. you said, yourself, that music itself is a signifier. so what is it signifying? why can't the syntactic tendency be a signifier of sophistic essence? |
Jameson himself declares the two tendencies "irreconcilable options".
| quote: | | regarding the 'external information'. I don't see why you consider this external? It comes from one mind, one hand. I mean I see why it would be convenient for the sake of argument to consider it external, but realistically... i am guessing you never make artwork, but only criticize it. i've spent my whole (short) life making artwork, whether music, painting, design, architecture, etc, so this is my perspective. |
Because the vinyl surface is not music. An interview with Jeff Mills is not music. Model 500 is not music. You can hear any of the related pieces of music without knowing the process or the thinking behind them. As I said: electronic music is the end of the process. How the music is created is no longer an issue. All of your philosophies about emulation, the power of the machine and so on are encoded only in the process, not in the product. Someone who knows nothing about how electronic music is made would not necessarily understand everything about the process behind the music. And why, for that matter, is a TB-303 more of a machine than a crafted, working-part metal mechanism like a trumpet?
The point is that these things are external to the music because you don't need to see, read or know any of them to appreciate the music. This is my point. You bring in things external to the music rather than just listening to it.
Incidentally, you guess wrong. I am a writer. I've been writing my whole life and I'm a student of literature (and language). Don't be so ridiculously condescending as to presume that anyone who disagrees with your artistic outlook has never involved themselves in the artistic process.
| quote: | | regarding insecurity - all i have to say is, look at the size of his dj booth compared with what he's doing. he only needs a laptop, lol. he's not even playing the virus, just easypiano arrangements on his midi controller (and i wonder if they arent pre-recorded) |
Categorical evidence if ever I saw it.
| quote: | | lol, thank you for your wonderful service to this venerable community. on behalf of everyone i'd like to thank you for leading the righteous way. it's clear you have some kind of personal crusade against the impassioned manner in which I write. guess what, no one else gives a . but i do appreciate the more constructive arguments you make. |
I'm not the slightest bit interested in what other people think and I would appreciate it if you didn't use strawmen arguments. If you're going to make a categorical statement and ommit the self-confessed "main reason" behind that statement then don't be surprised when people disagree with your given reasoning. If you're going to deny you're backtracking then I have no proof either way, but it will remain odd that you pushed forward an apparently secondary reason in your categorical statement and left out your "main reason".
| quote: | | Why do you think musical language lasts longer than other forms of language, such as things that mills says, and others read? |
I don't think music lasts longer than other forms of language. However, I do think that music doesn't need the associated language you've cited to have meaning, but the associated language definitely needs the music to have meaning.
| quote: | | ps - is that jameson in his 'postmodernism' book? |
No. It's from his essay "On the Dialectical Use of Genre Criticism". |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't see what you're doing as doing away with genre at all. I see you codifying a list of "musts" to be considered a genre. That the genre is defined by philosophy does not preclude it from being a genre. As you said earlier- if techno is played on an orchestra it stops being techno. So why should it matter that techno gain its power from the machine? If the product is no longer techno through an alteration of its philosophies it just becomes music. Why should you have an aversion to it? |
because i like techno, and because what the result is not very enjoyable as music..
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Jameson himself declares the two tendencies "irreconcilable options".
|
ok, well then i guess that settles it. :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because the vinyl surface is not music. An interview with Jeff Mills is not music. Model 500 is not music. You can hear any of the related pieces of music without knowing the process or the thinking behind them. As I said: electronic music is the end of the process. How the music is created is no longer an issue. All of your philosophies about emulation, the power of the machine and so on are encoded only in the process, not in the product. Someone who knows nothing about how electronic music is made would not necessarily understand everything about the process behind the music. |
that's bull. anyone who lives in modern society can listen to cyrus - enforcement (mills mix) and understand its machinic and cultural implications, even my grandmother. the message is in the process AND the product.
and if cybotron changed their name to "twelve dragon moon", it would affect perception of the music too. it's all part of the same artistic utterance. this is why so many bands pay close attention to cover art.
and a trumpet doesn't have a step sequencer, that is the difference.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The point is that these things are external to the music because you don't need to see, read or know any of them to appreciate the music. This is my point. You bring in things external to the music rather than just listening to it. |
what can I say, I just disagree. the music reeks of what you call external, it just requires having the proper olfactory senses to behold it. I've never heard of music stripped without all these so-called 'external' things. Please give me an example of this 'pure music' that doesn't have any 'external' implications or meanings.
all art from the beginning of time has had 'external' implications
do you think this artist just wanted to put some black lines on a rock? never mind the man with the erection. never mind the state of shamanic ecstasy and flight to the spirit world.
when you write, do you write just to see how the words look together on the paper?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Incidentally, you guess wrong. I am a writer. I've been writing my whole life and I'm a student of literature (and language). Don't be so ridiculously condescending as to presume that anyone who disagrees with your artistic outlook has never involved themselves in the artistic process. |
a creative writer or a critic? look i'm sure you're a fine writer. I wasn't being condescending (honestly), just trying to clarify perspectives. I don't find one better than the other or something.
| quote: |
I do think that music doesn't need the associated language you've cited to have meaning,
|
so where does this meaning come from then?
do you believe songs with lyrics are music? do you consider lyrical texts to be external to music and have nothing to do with musical meaning? is rap not music? if jeff mills sampled himself talking about his music over his muisc then would you consider it to be meaningful? |
|
|
| jupiterone |
| quote: | Originally posted by ravenrg84
wow, why all this hate for pvd? |
why not? just because he's PVD doesn't mean he gets a get out of flame free card |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
that's bull. anyone who lives in modern society can listen to cyrus - enforcement (mills mix) and understand its machinic implications. the message is in the process AND the product.
and if cybotron changed their name to "twelve dragon moon", it would affect perception of the music too. it's all part of the same artistic utterance. this is why so many bands pay close attention to cover art. |
Do you mean understand all that blather about the Prometheus effect and collective consciousness, or just understand that it sounds like machines? The complete ignorance many people have towards the difference between a DJ and a producer shows how little most people know of the process of electronic music. A lot of people simply would not get all the ideas you talk about, because it is knowledge external to the music.
Oh, and artist names and cover art are peripheral. Absolutely peripheral. They may add a complementary message to the music or they may even detract from the message through poor decisions but they are never more than peripheral. If you're telling me you cannot simply play someone Clear and have it impart the intended effect, that they need to see the cover art and know the name Cybotron to understand it then I think it is beginning to fail as a piece of music. But of course, those things are peripheral. I've never seen any Cybotron cover art and I've heard many Detroit tracks without knowing the artist name either. It doesn't matter because the music is its own sign.
| quote: | | what can I say, I just disagree. the music reeks of what you call external, it just requires having the proper olfactory senses to behold it. I've never heard of music stripped without all these so-called 'external' things. Please give me an example of this 'pure music' that doesn't have any 'external' implications or meanings. |
I wish I could find that extensive study someone linked to in a thread once examining why music has an emotional effect on us. The study cited blind babies listening to Mozart and raising their arms to the high notes. It would also answer your question about where the meaning of music arises from. A really extensive, scientific study it was. I wish I'd saved that thread.
| quote: | | a creative writer or a critic? look i'm sure you're a fine writer. I wasn't being condescending (honestly), just trying to clarify perspectives. I don't find one better than the other or something. |
Both, but I've been a creative writer far longer than I've been a critic. I've written novels, short fiction, poetry and scripts. I have a minor in Creative Writing and I'm not talking about simply writing amateur prose in my spare time. I have an arts degree not simply to dodge the science or engineering degree I could have opted for, but to gain a better understanding of the art form I participate in.
You came across as condescending because you seemed to be implying that nobody who is an artist could disagree with your perspective, and you guessed that my position was motivated by being an outsider to the creative process. Which simply isn't true.
EDIT: Regarding your edit, I once again refer back to Walter Pater. Music is the most abstract art form semiotically. In music the signifier and the signified are the same, and what do they refer to? What does a C# crotchet signify? Nothing beyond that tone for that duration. Only the most abstract of visual art can approach a similar divorce from an external signified. It's almost impossible for literature to do it at all. Such comparisons to other art forms are false analogies, semiotically. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Do you mean understand all that blather about the Prometheus effect and collective consciousness, or just understand that it sounds like machines? The complete ignorance many people have towards the difference between a DJ and a producer shows how little most people know of the process of electronic music. A lot of people simply would not get all the ideas you talk about, because it is knowledge external to the music. |
no, this 'blather' is intrinsic. when someone listens to the sound of tb303 acid for the first time, their consciousness is expanded, the same way it may have been when someone first blew a note on a saxophone. that's all i mean about the prometheus effect. machines have innate power to bring to life the unimaginable.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Oh, and artist names and cover art are peripheral. Absolutely peripheral. They may add a complementary message to the music or they may even detract from the message through poor decisions but they are never more than peripheral. If you're telling me you cannot simply play someone Clear and have it impart the intended effect, that they need to see the cover art and know the name Cybotron to understand it then I think it is beginning to fail as a piece of music. But of course, those things are peripheral. I've never seen any Cybotron cover art and I've heard many Detroit tracks without knowing the artist name either. It doesn't matter because the music is its own sign. |
i agree that they are peripheral, but if present, they definitely have an effect upon the perception of the music. 'underground resistance' is a great example of this.
but my point was not to say that the cover art is critical to listening to the album, just to say that the name and the cover art and the music are usually all linked by the same artistic utterance and idea.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wish I could find that extensive study someone linked to in a thread once examining why music has an emotional effect on us. The study cited blind babies listening to Mozart and raising their arms to the high notes. It would also answer your question about where the meaning of music arises from. A really extensive, scientific study it was. I wish I'd saved that thread. |
oh, you're talking about this. you don't need to link me to any studies - this is what i meant by 'archetypes' before. haptic responses to up/down/left/right/etc. i have read many articles on the effects of numinous sound and repetition as well. however, i would argue that these are not signs at all, but the thing itself.
generally in music these become basic gestures and then they become abstracted further into philosophical notions. ask bach what he thinks about god.
your idea about music seems to want to keep it at an infantile level of expression. i'm saying, society is grown up, we are capable of higher forms of language in music.
regarding your edit regarding my edit:
| quote: | | EDIT: Regarding your edit, I once again refer back to Walter Pater. Music is the most abstract art form semiotically. In music the signifier and the signified are the same, and what do they refer to? What does a C# crotchet signify? Nothing beyond that tone for that duration. Only the most abstract of visual art can approach a similar divorce from an external signified. It's almost impossible for literature to do it at all. Such comparisons to other art forms are false analogies, semiotically. |
i don't agree. maybe it's because you don't do visual art or make music. but there is artistically little difference between making a stroke on a blank canvas and yelling in a quiet room. it's the same gesture. but i do see where you are coming from.
a single stroke of orange on a white canvas is the same as a C# crotchet in a quiet room.
you might say, that stroke looks like a whale, but if you listen to jeff mills' synth, you might say, that kind of sounds like an automobile plant!
and you might hear 'peter and the wolf' and say, hmm, that flute sounds like a bird, and the oboe makes an awfully good duck... |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Hey guys...its just...techno...lol! |
I guess you're not in a typing mood today ;) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
no, this 'blather' is intrinsic. when someone listens to the sound of tb303 acid for the first time, their consciousness is expanded, the same way it may have been when someone first blew a note on a saxophone. that's all i mean about the prometheus effect. machines have innate power to bring to life the unimaginable. |
By this definition I don't see what makes the orchestra any different from techno. If anything, transcribing a style of composition to a new set of sounds brings to life what previously never existed.
| quote: | | oh, you're talking about this. you don't need to link me to any studies - this is what i meant by 'archetypes' before. haptic responses to up/down/left/right/etc. i have read many articles on the effects of numinous sound and repetition as well. however, i would argue that these are not signs at all, but the thing itself. |
I used it as an example to highlight the inherent signified of music divorced from any social context. Just because everyone living in Western society is assumed to know certain things shouldn't mean those things are important to understanding techno. If that is the case, techno has a limited shelf life, beyond which it becomes obsolescent.
| quote: | | your idea about music seems to want to keep it at an infantile level of expression. i'm saying, society is grown up, we are capable of higher forms of language in music. |
Not really. My point was mainly to show the inherent properties of music. Most of this is an expansion on a point you've essentially retracted. I started arguing because it sounded very much like you were dismissing orchestral arrangements of techno based on an assumed inferiority complex and a manifesto. As I said right at the start, I don't believe music can't and shouldn't mean anything beyond its sound, especially in the era of sampling, but I don't believe words should supplant the music. I believe lyrics are no less peripheral than cover art and I believe that music should always primarily be its own referent. That is the "essence" of music, it is what makes it unique from other forms. I have nothing against cross-pollinating this essence but when I see people put the external before the music I get irritated. That is what I saw you as doing. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
By this definition I don't see what makes the orchestra any different from techno. If anything, transcribing a style of composition to a new set of sounds brings to life what previously never existed. |
i'll admit that it's possible, but if you listen to the mills arrangements and this pvd arrangements, you'll see it's nothing new under the sun. maybe it has to do with the imagination and creativity of the arranger. pvd's using bits from holst for god's sake.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I used it as an example to highlight the inherent signified of music divorced from any social context. Just because everyone living in Western society is assumed to know certain things shouldn't mean those things are important to understanding techno. If that is the case, techno has a limited shelf life, beyond which it becomes obsolescent. |
i think essentially it does, and essentially this is what is happening. it's time for model 5000. the techno that is 'old' tends to fetishize a future of the past. but like I have said, I think techno is first an foremost a philosophy, and that if producers of contemporary techno were to apply this philosophy to their craft, like the originators did, rather than to dwell on specific 'syntactical tendencies' as you say, perhaps 'vocabulary' is a better word, then techno might avoid obsolescence. but there is no question about it, the spirit of the times are technologies that appear and obsolesce nearly overnight. even classical music's rise would be considered relatively overnight in the grand schema of human musical endeavor.
here's something for you to scoff at: :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_theory
btw - i don't purport to believe in this, but it interests me.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Not really. My point was mainly to show the inherent properties of music. Most of this is an expansion on a point you've essentially retracted. I started arguing because it sounded very much like you were dismissing orchestral arrangements of techno based on an assumed inferiority complex and a manifesto. As I said right at the start, I don't believe music can't and shouldn't mean anything beyond its sound, especially in the era of sampling, but I don't believe words should supplant the music. I believe lyrics are no less peripheral than cover art and I believe that music should always primarily be its own referent. That is the "essence" of music, it is what makes it unique from other forms. I have nothing against cross-pollinating this essence but when I see people put the external before the music I get irritated. That is what I saw you as doing. |
well just so we're clear, i'll say it for the third time: I have an aversion to orchestral arrangements of techno compositions, and this is my manifesto:
1- i have yet to hear something convincing produced in this way.
2- i think this is because the presence of an orchestra, with its familiar instrumentation, arrangements, and setting (under the pont du gard in mills case, no less) deprives techno of its greatest strength, which is its ability as machine-music to subject humans to and reveal unplayable/unimaginable rhythms,dynamics,frequencies,patterns. no instrument on earth can sustain a bass rumble for 4 minutes but thunder. no orchestra can transform the space it is inside with delay and reverberation units. no player on earth can modulate sound as perfectly repetitive and yet frenetically as the tb303 step sequencer.
I think techno is at its best, no less than a machine for human psychic development. Similar to the way we may be able to augment our bodies with electrical components to increase visual acuity or strength, I believe techno is, at it's best, a prototypical technology for augmenting human consciousness. Music has always been used to connect to the great mysteries of our universe, whether it is a stir in the heart caused by a section of swelling cellos, a choir proclaiming 'hallelujah', or a sublime tabla raga performed by a guru. But these are all archaic ways of connecting through to the sublime aurally, like an abacus for calculation. Today we have computers which allow us to perform incredible computations without pause. I believe techno has a similar role in allowing humans to transcend their physical and mental limitations.
I believe that every musical instrument invention leading up until now can be considered a step forward, leading to this. There are two prototypical instruments: one is the human voice, the vocal chamber, and the other is hitting something with a stick. Interestingly, a primary musical instrument is the same language device behind lyrics, which you dismiss as peripheral. Chanting is a form of music older than history itself! The pipe was the first abstraction of the human voice, the first digital (in the most literal sense) augmentation of a voice. It allowed man to speak through the voice of another. The reed then replaced the human vocal chord, and was eventually supplanted by the string.
Now we no longer use our fingers to create vibration in static objects, we inflect them with electricity and call them oscillators, and oscillators allow man to do what no man has ever done before. We can reproduce natural noises almost to an indistinguishable degree, as well as reveal sounds that seem wholly alien to us. The oscillator has replaced the vocal chord, pipe, reed, string, AND stick/drum/bell, reduced sound to its purest form, as energy, vibration. Now we can manipulate energy directly to reach worlds of sound previously unattainable, every schoolchild can create synthesize emotions and intensities with no musical training what so ever.
I believe that all forms of artwork are SUPPOSED to communicate something external to the artwork itself, or they become masturbatory, indulgent, and pointless. And I believe that, despite what you may think, most artwork is intended to, and does communicate these external things. Only until recent times have all the different forms of artwork become so separated.
With the rise of the global network and the cross-polination of so much media, we are living in a time where music is loaded with more meaning than ever before. I think your conception of this 'pure music, free from external meaning', while pleasant, is very naive and maybe quaint. You may be more idealistic than me even. In a world where everyone has something to say, it is impossible to live in silence.
This is the future, this is techno, this is transcendence, and I embrace it.
I have my manifesto, and you have yours:
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As I said right at the start, I don't believe music can't and shouldn't mean anything beyond its sound, especially in the era of sampling, but I don't believe words should supplant the music. I believe lyrics are no less peripheral than cover art and I believe that music should always primarily be its own referent. That is the "essence" of music, it is what makes it unique from other forms. I have nothing against cross-pollinating this essence but when I see people put the external before the music I get irritated. That is what I saw you as doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
