this one didnt go through the first time.... On 11/1/07, still want to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like how you have put the hand brake on here .. and begun to define the > parameters for which an artist should/could create new music. i'm not defining parameters, i am simply pointing out that in the making of recorded music there are different jobs: producer, musician, engineer. in most dance music, the producer is also the musician and the engineer, s/he had the overall idea of what the record should do, plays everything on it, and programs all the technical stuff him/herself. there's only so much time in any day, the number of people who can handle the musician and producer parts the best are not necessarily the people who are the best engineers. you can come up with some cases of truly brilliant musicians or producers who contributed to groundbreaking engineering (king tubby, the beatles, miles davis come immediately to mind) but their numbers are very few and for the most part they were not working alone, they had crazy assistance! the tendency in electronic music in particular is for the less talented producers and musicians to substitute heavy engineering for good songs. sure they make neat noises, but their tunes don't stand the test of time. and the more complex the engineering required to make the tracks, the less time and energy the tunes themselves seem to get (see drum and bass in the 07). > Again .. I am trying to open doors and suggest new ways to make music, > to extend its possibilities. the possibilities were already endless, which is why i think trying to "extend" them is a silly idea. > Why should Dj's replace bands? they don't have to, but i am not interested in them so much. i like live music that functions deep in the groove, im not into rockin guitar solos and dramatic stage presence or whatever. so so so very few live performers can do that for me (fat freddy's drop is a standout from recent years where the egos were all subjugated to the groove!) > What was wrong with classical music? the typical performance! sitting around stodgy theatres in a suit, politely clapping, or maybe even worse when string quartets are hired to play background music at functions where people just dont give a sh*t. plus the attitudes of many classical fans is obnoxious. im definitely very interested in more modern minimal composition and avant garde stuff where they get rid of all that nonsense, but those people dont get much love in the classical music realm anyway! theyre more like techno than 99% of techno artists are without even trying. > Thinking that the Dj is the ultimate solution to the performance paradigm is > getting pretty narrow. do you think so? i dont. the deejay is limited only by his collection of records. how many musicians can memorize the literally tens of thousands of songs that any given deejay has to choose from? almost none! how many can be masters of any genre or style that a deejay with great knowledge can be? almost none. the deejay has a very unique position and skill set that can harness the best musicians of all time and every genre ever and any song as it could best be performed and use it to shape mood, atmosphere, etc. > You seem to be clamping down firmly again on your view of reality being > the only right and correct way for things to happen. i mean, people are free to do whatever they please. but the results of people simply trying to "do something new" have been garbage, by far. it is a useless pursuit that has led to so many terrible records and almost no awesome records that i am surprised that anyone thinks it is a good idea. good music is revolutionary, everything else is just hype/intellectual crap slapped on by critics and other people observing it. > There is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new under the sun. > I'm just not buying it. I have suggested several ways to do things > differently > and because they are not fitting into your description of what "IS" then > they become impossible, irrelevant or simply dismissed. i mean, my definition of music is the loosest possible definition: an artistic arrangement of sounds and rhythms. i didnt say that artists have to put themselves in their music, thats just the way it is! these things dont come from nowhere. i mean, you can go on believing that great music will just come from the netherworld through your "new ideas" but ill stick with reality. > I have not mentioned sensors or computer once .. or any form of automation. then what else is there? if a person is involved, they have input. end of story. you cannot remove that person from the equation. if you do, you have nothing! > What if an artist set up the sensor? How do you start to differentiate > between > where the composition of music starts and finishes? brian eno has been dealing with this idea since the early 70's, check "discrete music". this is nothing new! and he is still the man responsible for his music, without his ideas the music would not happen at all. there would be nothing. > The reaction to my ideas seem to be indignation and fear. I have merely made > suggestions to ideas about the ways music could be stimulated in different > setting > to perhaps create new forms of music. but music is so old. techno is nothing new, it is tribal trance music made with drum machines instead of hand drums. everything is an extension of a very old, very simple idea. there's no fear, though i do feel some indignation towards the idea that music as it always has been is "not enough". it is nonsense. > These ideas are in response to the question "have we run out of music?" the fact is that it is impossible for any one person to know every piece of music that exists in the world. so many things can come about from those already limitless possibilities that no one knows about without having to resort to novelty. > I just can't agree with the limitations you place on what music is and how it > should exist. While I can see that you are attempting to protect the artist > and > the structures that currently exist for music. I think its worth challenging > these > structures in order to stimulate new ideas. if you really think that it will be worth your time and energy, i wish you alot of luck with that. in the meantime, music made from the soul will do it for me every single time, regardless of what nonsense is dressing it up. people keep trying to "fix" something that isnt broken. if you listen to all the music that is out there and your reponse is "well, it could be better...", then i think the problem is with you, not with music. some old ideas are good, some are bad. not everything that is the standard is bad, and in many cases these attempts at doing something different just to be different do nothing more than enforce just how good that old idea really is. > I still think its reasonable to consider music existing in completely > different ways > to what we now know as normal. it has nothing to do with normal. i hear 3D sound CONSTANTLY. that is as normal as it gets, if anything listening to music from 2 speakers is "not normal". who cares about what is "normal" though? why does the presentation matter so much to you? tom
