quote="eduardo_b"]There was a very recent thread in which the term experimental music was introduced, and some said their music was most definitely not experimental. So I decided to find a definition that might give me some insight regarding this term, and here's what I found on Wikipedia: The term was first introduced by composer John Cage in 1955. According to Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is not foreseen", and he was specifically interested in completed works that performed an unpredictable action. This was not what I expected. To me, it would be "music" that 99 out of 100 people would say, "That's not music!" That is, melody would be marginal or non-existent relative to what we sing or hum along to in our cars and showers. But "unexpected outcomes" was, to me, unexpected. I assume he means unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be negative for the vast majority of those hearing it. So, do those who believe they are creating experimental music adhere to the John Cage definition, or is it more about music that simply doesn't conform to what 99 percent of listeners want to hear? In other words, is experimental music outside of any of the recognized genres of music now in existence? Have at it. I'll be back later to see how it's going. [/quote] It is interesting how what is considered experimental European music has entered the "pop" music mainstream. Futurist Luigi Russolo (http://www.windworld.com/feature_pages/feature_images/russolo.jpg) called for an "art of noise", using the sounds of everyday life in the early years of the 20th Century, Pierre Henry laboriously cut up fragments of tape to reassemble them into musical pieces. The Beatles used Henry's techniques in a number of pieces (I Am The Walrus, Revolution 9) and Spooky Tooth recorded an album with Henry (Ceremony). In the '90s bands were dropping in fragments of beats from other music and whole lines of dialogue from movies like Evil Dead 2. And The Art of Noise based their entire ouevre in sampling - the name was no accident. Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Louise and Bebe Barron (Forbidden Planet sountrack) built sound generating equipment that were rudimentary FM synthesis modules and ring modulators. Versions were incorporated into the early Moog and Buchla modular synths, John Chowning patented a digital version of FM which led to the inescapable DX7, and now FM and RM synthesis are in a lot of software synths. It is important to note that the early Moogs and Buchlas were originally designed for use in "avant-garde" music. Only Buchla remained relentlessly avant-garde. Echoes of Steve Reich's and Philip Glass' minimalist pieces are in Brian Eno's ambient albums and Eno's collaboration with Laraji Day of Radiance could almost be a Reich piece. Glen Branca's Guitar Symphonies have been superceded by NIN's (Adrian Belew's)guitar skronk on The Downward Spiral. Robert Fripp has worked for decades with a variation of the avant-garde tape technique, the Ussachevsky loop. Zappa worshipped at the altar of Edgar Varese. And tell me exactly where you're gonna place Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band. I think that there is a good case to be made that "avant-garde" and "experimental" music has found their true home and have flourished and received a wide audience in the rock canon. In its former place within the DWEM "classical" canon, it is for the most part unlistenable, inaccessable and IT IS MEANT TO BE THAT WAY. There's also the fact that a lot of "rock" musicians have MAD SKILLZ compared to their "classical" counterparts. It's the conflict between "high" and "low" art. And "high" art lost because the 20th Century DWEM canon was a useless bourgeois conceit. Watchmen (the graphic novel) is a better novel than anything John Updike ever did and better art than anything you'd see at the Whitney Biennial. You can have your Segovias - I got John Fahey.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:14:03 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: >quote="eduardo_b"]There was a very recent thread in which the term >experimental music was introduced, and some said their music was most >definitely not experimental. So I decided to find a definition that might >give me some insight regarding this term, and here's what I found on >Wikipedia: > >The term was first introduced by composer John Cage in 1955. According to >Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is >not foreseen", and he was specifically interested in completed works that >performed an unpredictable action. > >This was not what I expected. To me, it would be "music" that 99 out of 100 >people would say, "That's not music!" That is, melody would be marginal or >non-existent relative to what we sing or hum along to in our cars and >showers. But "unexpected outcomes" was, to me, unexpected. I assume he means >unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be >negative for the vast majority of those hearing it. > >So, do those who believe they are creating experimental music adhere to the >John Cage definition, or is it more about music that simply doesn't conform >to what 99 percent of listeners want to hear? In other words, is >experimental music outside of any of the recognized genres of music now in >existence? > >Have at it. I'll be back later to see how it's going. [/quote] > > >It is interesting how what is considered experimental European music has >entered the "pop" music mainstream. > >Futurist Luigi Russolo >(http://www.windworld.com/feature_pages/feature_images/russolo.jpg) called >for an "art of noise", using the sounds of everyday life in the early years >of the 20th Century, Pierre Henry laboriously cut up fragments of tape to >reassemble them into musical pieces. The Beatles used Henry's techniques in >a number of pieces (I Am The Walrus, Revolution 9) and Spooky Tooth recorded >an album with Henry (Ceremony). In the '90s bands were dropping in fragments >of beats from other music and whole lines of dialogue from movies like Evil >Dead 2. And The Art of Noise based their entire ouevre in sampling - the >name was no accident. > >Karlheinz Stockhausen, and Louise and Bebe Barron (Forbidden Planet >sountrack) built sound generating equipment that were rudimentary FM >synthesis modules and ring modulators. Versions were incorporated into the >early Moog and Buchla modular synths, John Chowning patented a digital >version of FM which led to the inescapable DX7, and now FM and RM synthesis >are in a lot of software synths. > >It is important to note that the early Moogs and Buchlas were originally >designed for use in "avant-garde" music. Only Buchla remained relentlessly >avant-garde. > >Echoes of Steve Reich's and Philip Glass' minimalist pieces are in Brian >Eno's ambient albums and Eno's collaboration with Laraji Day of Radiance >could almost be a Reich piece. Glen Branca's Guitar Symphonies have been >superceded by NIN's (Adrian Belew's)guitar skronk on The Downward Spiral. >Robert Fripp has worked for decades with a variation of the avant-garde tape >technique, the Ussachevsky loop. Zappa worshipped at the altar of Edgar >Varese. > >And tell me exactly where you're gonna place Captain Beefheart and the Magic >Band. > >I think that there is a good case to be made that "avant-garde" and >"experimental" music has found their true home and have flourished and >received a wide audience in the rock canon. In its former place within the >DWEM "classical" canon, it is for the most part unlistenable, inaccessable >and IT IS MEANT TO BE THAT WAY. > >There's also the fact that a lot of "rock" musicians have MAD SKILLZ >compared to their "classical" counterparts. > >It's the conflict between "high" and "low" art. And "high" art lost because >the 20th Century DWEM canon was a useless bourgeois conceit. > >Watchmen (the graphic novel) is a better novel than anything John Updike >ever did and better art than anything you'd see at the Whitney Biennial. > >You can have your Segovias - I got John Fahey. > Wow!..that's an awful lot of stuff to digest...particularly for someone who's songwriting and who's influences are anything but avant-garde. I like music to have a definite structure...further more, I've never strayed too far from the concept that most people actually want to be entertained. Art for art's sake is what springs to mind...though I fully accept that progress is limited without a degree of experimentation. The trouble is it can all get very pretentious and tedious. Karlheinz Stockhausen...my only knowledge here comes from a brief flirtation with German rockers Can who apparently studied under Stockhausen. Their music (recording technique in particular) was way ahead of its time and the metronomic drumming of Jaki Lieberzeit was outstanding. On the other hand, I saw them live a time or two...they were actually a bunch of stoners who weren't very good players at all. They took to the stage completely wrecked, made a dubious racket for an hour or so before staggering off. Their single 'Moonshake' was nonetheless a monumental moment in time. Zappa was a brilliant musician/ guitarist...and a fine producer. He also turned out a geneous percentage of total crap! I have nothing complementary whatever to say about Captain Beefheart...I saw him and his dreadful Magic Band at Nottingham University (UK) in the early 70's..it was pitiful. Oh...and Roxy Music were great (same venue) except for Brian Eno(wtf??!!) Sod it...I'm rambling and being a bit inflammatory!! I'm biased I know, but I just think that it all gets a bit too serous sometimes... too arty-farty for the likes of this old rocker..........LL
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:14:03 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: >quote="eduardo_b"]There was a very recent thread in which the term >experimental music was introduced, and some said their music was most >definitely not experimental. So I decided to find a definition that might >give me some insight regarding this term, and here's what I found on >Wikipedia: > >The term was first introduced by composer John Cage in 1955. According to >Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is >not foreseen", and he was specifically interested in completed works that >performed an unpredictable action. > >This was not what I expected. To me, it would be "music" that 99 out of 100 >people would say, "That's not music!" That is, melody would be marginal or >non-existent relative to what we sing or hum along to in our cars and >showers. But "unexpected outcomes" was, to me, unexpected. I assume he means >unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be >negative for the vast majority of those hearing it. I think I'd lean towards Cage's definition. When I was in school I performed (guitar) in a few 20th century percussion pieces put on by the faculty percussionist. In several of them, the element of chance was written into the score. Example....(this was an 8 piece group, Oboe, Clarinet, Trombone, Elec Guitar, Percussion, Cello, Violin & Alto Sax.) We were given a string of notes (5 or 6) to be played in any manner we chose over 90 seconds.(time cued by percussionist/leader.). We could play one note or as many as we felt like, we could react to what others were playing or go off on our own. Also, each of us had a microphone, we had a list of words, we could pick one to say at a designated point. The speaking part went round in a circle, from one musician to the next until we had each said one word, with any inflection we desired. The words formed a wildly unpredictable sentence and depending on inflections were either funny, melancholy, frightening,...etc..etc. This kind of stuff was big at Universities.. pretentous, yeah but also interesting. Ap
You left out a few names Joseph Schillinger was a pioneer and pretty out there the work done with the periodtoc table of chemistry and the ?chalden? circles....dust balls found under the organ pipes in the 1700 Aresnic being the same design as the note "B" or "H" if you are in some areas of Europe..... the parlor game that was popular in the 20's harmonium let's not forget Terry Riley's "In C" I guess my point is Music is a vast and as deep as you want to make it..... no matter which path you choose the purpose is to evoke an emotion. BTW I'm sure some of the spelling is incorrect most of these references are from my studies many years ago. Later Terry
"Terry Cano" <> wrote in message news:npVDl.15440$... > You left out a few names > Joseph Schillinger > was a pioneer and pretty out there > the work done with the periodtoc table of chemistry > and the ?chalden? circles....dust balls found under the organ pipes > in the 1700 Aresnic being the same design as the note "B" or "H" if you > are > in some areas of Europe..... > the parlor game that was popular in the 20's harmonium > let's not forget Terry Riley's "In C" Shoulda remembered Riley. He worked with John Cale on one album and Philip Glass, who at one point did a dance/rock album. > I guess my point is > > Music is a vast and as deep as you want to make it..... > no matter which path you choose the purpose is to evoke > an emotion. Or a brilliant perfect construct, like Bach.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:28:06 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: >Or a brilliant perfect construct, like Bach. Didn't he write a song for Procol Harum?!!...........LL >
"lancelightning" <> wrote in message news:... > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:28:06 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> > wrote: > >>Or a brilliant perfect construct, like Bach. > > Didn't he write a song for Procol Harum?!!...........LL >> And he played it on ancient, steam driven synthesizers.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:14:03 -0400, "S.O.D.D.I." <> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write: >But "unexpected outcomes" was, to me, unexpected. I assume he means >unexpected by the listener, and the reaction could be expected to be >negative for the vast majority of those hearing it. Not necessarily. Cage's (in)famous piece 3'33", wherein a pianist was to lay his fingers on the keys so lightly as to not cause sound, was an experimental piece. It was to be performed in a hall with all the doors and windows (if it had them) thrown wide open, to allow the sounds of the street outside to invade the hall. The idea being, of course, for the audience to hear the music in the street outside. The pianist on the stage was just there for visual effect. And since you never know what's going to be outside, both composer and audience would be experiencing it anew each time. However much they asked for the ticket to such an event, I think I'd've rathered bought a hotdog and a soda from a street vendor and sat outside watching the world go by. *grin* -- jtougas "listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door let's go" - e.e. cummings
On Apr 9, 3:14 pm, "S.O.D.D.I." <> wrote: > quote="eduardo_b"]There was a very recent thread in which the term > experimental music was introduced, and some said their music was most > definitely not experimental. So I decided to find a definition that might > give me some insight regarding this term As part of the process of teaching myself how to compose in MIDI (Atari ST, Mastertracks, Akai X-7000, Roland MT-32), I recorded some simple loops and at one point, ended with some odd-numbered measures. When playing this mixture back, the loops interact in nearly- unpredictable ways. Say you have one loop that's 8 bars, another that's 15 bars, another that's 7 bars, etc. Throw into that mix the Akai sampler, wherein MIDI triggers 'audio events', which don't necessarily have a musical tone. The sampled event can be a rhythm itself, which will vary with which MIDI note number is triggered. I sometimes would play the passage using a piano voice, then select it over to the sampler, to be played back with a movie dialog sample. Interesting results; but is it art? I recorded hours of it on VHS, so it's possible for one to judge for oneself. But not likely that you'd ever want to. Now that I think about it, this process resonates with my songwriting beginnings. My family ran a weekly newspaper, and my job was running the cylinder press. I was mounted on a platform, my head up between the rafters and heating ducts, so that all I could see and hear was the press, with its hundreds of mechanical parts clicking and clattering away in seemingly-independent rhythms. I'd pick up on one set of rhythm loops, and make up a song that went with it. Later, I found that I couldn't extract that same loop from the cacaphony, so I'd latch onto another, and make up another song. That newspaper still exists, but when I visited the shop, there are no presses, no ink, no clattering mechanical rhythms, so budding songwriters will just have to find some other job.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote: >As part of the process of teaching myself how to compose in MIDI >(Atari ST, Mastertracks, Akai X-7000, Roland MT-32) Same setup as me, except for the mastertracks!
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:09:01 +0200, Bas <> wrote: >On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT), >wrote: > > >>As part of the process of teaching myself how to compose in MIDI >>(Atari ST, Mastertracks, Akai X-7000, Roland MT-32) > >Same setup as me, except for the mastertracks! Any of you ever download the GM sysex patch(s) I created for the MT-32 sometime last century! Ap
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:45:01 GMT, (Aphelion) wrote: >On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:09:01 +0200, Bas ><> wrote: > >>On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT), >>wrote: >> >> >>>As part of the process of teaching myself how to compose in MIDI >>>(Atari ST, Mastertracks, Akai X-7000, Roland MT-32) >> >>Same setup as me, except for the mastertracks! > > >Any of you ever download the GM sysex patch(s) I created for the MT-32 >sometime last century! > >Ap No sorry, when I was working with the MT-32, I wasn't into the internet yet. My first internet experience was with a brand new state-of-the-art 14k4 modem, although years before that I did have an acoustic modem for my Commodore 64, for use with bulletin boards.
