On 11/1/07, still want to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think we have run out of music. I think we have run out of space in > the > current dimension that we listen to music.
i just dont know. i feel like all this surround sound stuff is just the emperor's new clothes, a new way to dress up a lack of quality. if something sounds good only in 3 dimensional space, is it really good or are we just impressed with technical innovation? a good song sounds good in mono coming out of a crappy radio, it sounds good in a crappy car system, it sounds good all the time. it is not dependent on anything else except its own intrinsic quality. > If as Francis suggest we have discovered every type of music there is to find > and we can create every sound there is to create .. then where to next. arranging them in ways that sound good! too many people seem to think that making generic genre tracks using "new" sounds is enough. those tunes are the definition of throwaway trendy crap. > If music is organised sound .. and we are getting bored of the way that the > sounds are being organised .. and we think that we have exhausted all the > possible ways to organise sound. .. its funny that anyone would think that. with even just the 88 notes on a keyboard, combined with the absolutely infinite number of rhythms and infinite variations on those rhythms using time signatures and the like, the possibilities are absolutely limitless. and thats not even considering how music can express emotions and feelings differently using the same rhythms and melodies, im just talking about purely from a mathematical view of what is possible. people just arent interested in trying to do something new for the most part, theyre trying to fit into subsubgenre X so they can get popular and paid or whatever. its just laziness and lack of creativity. > I imagine .. clubs in the future having visceral sound systems that react to > the audience emotion levels. isnt that what having a good deejay and lots of bass is for?!?!?! there is no technological advances necessary! the best deejays have that on lock. > Or music that you purchase that is an environment, a sonic landscape that > is interactive and changes according to the time of day. isnt that what an ipod is for? mixtapes? > I think the idea of music as a static object of fixed entity will become very > old fashioned soon. Music will be regarded like plants, something that > grows and evolves has a life of its own. if music is not fixed, what is the point of the artist even existing? surely computer programs can just take over at that point and provide any number of emotionless theoretical iterations of whatever piece of music you insert into it. personally, i think the artist's viewpoint *IS* the music, otherwise it is just sound. > I see music like ripples in a pool. I hear sound as space. I want to > experience music that has a physically and dimensional texture like > swimming in a river current or gliding in the wind. this all sounds romantic or whatever, but for me it is meaningless. i hear music as an expression of an artist. perhaps there are some artists who would really be able to better express themselves with new technology, but i dont think it would be many artists. most artists now use the technology as window dressing, i imagine that will continue to be the case. tom
