IDM Mailing Archive

1998-04-10 21:32KaisrSolze1) to work with the form (eg squarepusher, jega, rdj, etc.), > >using its formal elements

From:: KaisrSolze <KaisrSolze@aol.com>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:32:37 EDT
Subject:: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

1) to work with the form (eg squarepusher, jega, rdj, etc.),

quoted 1 line using its formal elements but always as an expansion of the form; and

> >using its formal elements but always as an expansion of the form; and

quoted 4 lines I think of this as basically being programmed jazz. Not that it isn't

>I think of this as basically being programmed jazz. Not that it isn't >doing things never before done with jazz (for instance, extremely flanged >perfect 96th-note-triplets ascending in perfect linear pitch or volume >ain't exactly Max Roach or Buddy Rich)

I really am not feeling this comment at all... Maybe it's just my flawed outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it, jazz=improvisation. Sometimes this improv is within a strict form (bebop, etc.), sometimes it's "free jazz." But programming jazz strips it of its essential nature. I'm going to make an ass out of myself with this comment, but a lot of people on this list seem to have a skewed conception of what jazz is. People like limp 70's fusion, the programmed noodling of various newer musicians, elevator lite jazz Bukem style, etc. That's fine, it isn't my taste, but it's your right. It just bothers me when you call it jazz, because it's another beast entirely. Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and electronic music in general. I think programming can go a really long way... But has anyone really been able to achieve the same level of communication and interaction with their synths and computer programs that a moderately gifted player can with a sax or guitar or other physical instrument? Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as a physical instrument, dynamically and otherwise? Maybe in a few years electronic musicians will be able to instantly call up exactly the sound they want, but I don't see that capability existing now. In some ways, I would think that DJs are further along than the teeming hoards of white boys with sequencers. At least they can almost instantly choose any record, and any sound ever recorded... Still, there are technology limitations turntables can only pitch up and down so far, djs can't switch record instantly... There's still a long way to go. So what's my point? Just that I don't mean to flame or insult anyone, but there's still a fundamental difference between electronic and electric/acoustic/physical music. And paying lip service to being "jazzy" or anything else isn't going to change that. Sam who will kill aol if it eats this message too

1998-04-10 22:13mallenOn Fri, 10 Apr 1998, KaisrSolze wrote: > Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the li

From:: mallen <annwn@zipcon.net>
To:: KaisrSolze <KaisrSolze@aol.com>
Cc:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)
Reply to:: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, KaisrSolze wrote:

quoted 9 lines Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and

> Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and >electronic music in general. I think programming can go a really long >way... But has anyone really been able to achieve the same level of >communication and interaction with their synths and computer programs >that a moderately gifted player can with a sax or guitar or other >physical instrument? Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as >a physical instrument, dynamically and otherwise? Maybe in a few years >electronic musicians will be able to instantly call up exactly the sound >they want, but I don't see that capability existing now.

I think however that (in my opinion here) this is not the point of electronic music. Since very early on electronic music's goal has been more exploratory than any other form of music. Very often the point has been what can be done with this equipment that pushes the boundries of what most people would consider music. Much of it has to do with the technological aspects of it, But i also think it can be traced to trying to find a new form of musical communication. John coltrane moves me with his playing. Autechre just move me somewhere else. The point of alot of electronic music is certainly not the same point trying to be made with classic acoustic instruments. Modern electronic composers are looking to use technology to push 'music' in a different direction than what has come before. m. ps. wells, im sorry if this was too pretentious for you :)

1998-04-11 22:31Mark KolmarOn Fri, 10 Apr 1998, KaisrSolze wrote: > outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. T

From:: Mark Kolmar <mkolmar@xnet.com>
To:: KaisrSolze <KaisrSolze@aol.com>
Cc:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:31:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)
Reply to:: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, KaisrSolze wrote:

quoted 4 lines outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it,

> outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it, > jazz=improvisation. Sometimes this improv is within a strict form > (bebop, etc.), sometimes it's "free jazz." But programming jazz strips > it of its essential nature.

I agree that the magic which jazz can create comes out of a sort of musical conversation between the players. My main complaint about IDM and D'n'B which invokes the flavor of jazz has been that it comes out flat and bland to my taste. Playing to a programmed backing, there is no give-and- take -- the programmed parts don't adjust themselves based on what they hear you play. Compare Miles Davis' _In a Silent Way_ to much of the jazz-ish, cafe music of the last several years, and that should illustrate the point.

quoted 4 lines Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as

> Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as > a physical instrument, dynamically and otherwise? Maybe in a few years > electronic musicians will be able to instantly call up exactly the sound > they want, but I don't see that capability existing now.

I think the problem is partly that so much of the gear, and the thinking behind it, comes from an attempt to find a cheap way to simulate acoustic instruments. (And for that matter, natural spaces.) But that misses the point: electronic musicians can be open to "happy accidents" (even when every event is programmed), much as a jazz quintet won't be sure exactly what will happen next, only that it will fall within certain boundaries. --Mark __ <http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome> < MPEG & RA audio clips > Forthcoming CD SENSELESS on Mindfield Records MINDCD03 Cathartium 14 m u s i c : w e b : s o u n d d e s i g n : h t m l : c g i : e t c "I'm a liberal guy too cool for the macho ache with a secret tooth for the cherry on the cake" -- Prefab Sprout, "Cruel"

1998-04-10 22:53AndregurovIn a message dated 98-04-10 17:33:21 EDT, KaisrSolze@aol.com writes: << programmed jazz is

From:: Andregurov <Andregurov@aol.com>
To:: <KaisrSolze@aol.com>, <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:53:52 EDT
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

In a message dated 98-04-10 17:33:21 EDT, KaisrSolze@aol.com writes: << programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it, jazz=improvisation. >> Word to the mothership. "The Dolomites! The Dolomites! That's all that you can talk to me about!"--Vaclav Havel J PS - I find all of this discussion bunk. Flanged 96th notes? And you speak of Max Roach with the same tone? God forbid Armageddon come with our pants down. Programming is a long way developed, but until Aphex finalizes his self- creating software and rules the universe, tedium will dominate this list when traversing the ground where overburdened intellect and pure aural hedonism do meet.

1998-04-10 23:50thatcat@ix.netcom.comOn 04/10/98 15:13:41 you wrote: >> Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits o

From:: <thatcat@ix.netcom.com>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:50:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

On 04/10/98 15:13:41 you wrote:

quoted 6 lines Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and

>> Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and >>electronic music in general. I think programming can go a really long >>way... But has anyone really been able to achieve the same level of >>communication and interaction with their synths and computer programs >>that a moderately gifted player can with a sax or guitar or other >>physical instrument?

yes. but in a different fashion...playing an instrument is a combination of mental (deciding which notes to play) and physical (actually playing the instrument) skills. working with a computer is all mental. lots of musicians communicate with and interact with their synths and equipment...tweaking a filter cutoff knob or pitch-shifting a sound up and down in realtime is not all that different than bending a guitar string to get vibrato, or muting a trumpet.

quoted 2 lines Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as

> Is any computer program as flexible and nuanced as >>a physical instrument, dynamically and otherwise?

computer programs in general are far more flexible than physical instruments in terms of sound creation...i can get synth pads, bass sounds, drums, voices etc. out of my computer...let's see someone do that with a flute. the thing that makes physical instruments so great is that you can physically modify the timbres in real time to a great degree. and you are correct in saying that you can't do that as well with synths or software. but to say that computers and synths aren't flexible in making sound is silly. another important difference is that playing a physical instrument requires years of training before you can express your musical ideas, whereas someone with creativity and intelligence can start off making electronic music without spending years playing frustratingly simple tunes.

quoted 3 lines Maybe in a few years

>Maybe in a few years >>electronic musicians will be able to instantly call up exactly the sound >>they want, but I don't see that capability existing now.

i can call up instantly the sound i want, if i've already created it and saved it. otherwise i have to make it, but i can generally create whatever sorts of sounds that i imagine. i don't see where acoustic instruments would be better...a sax player can't "call up" a bass guitar sound...? er, given the title of the thread, i guess i should mention that i don't hate acoustic music; i enjoy classical music and especially jazz (and occasionally the rare guitar band)...but i feel that electronic music generally intrigues and excites me far more. np: autechre "basscadet" "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."

1998-04-11 00:03thatcat@ix.netcom.comOn 04/10/98 17:32:37 you wrote: oops, apparently i repsonded to a reply to this post befor

From:: <thatcat@ix.netcom.com>
To:: <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 19:03:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

On 04/10/98 17:32:37 you wrote: oops, apparently i repsonded to a reply to this post before i responded to the post itself...

quoted 3 lines I really am not feeling this comment at all... Maybe it's just my flawed

>I really am not feeling this comment at all... Maybe it's just my flawed > outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it, > jazz=improvisation.

so freeform and recent autechre count as jazz. if squarepusher makes up his basslines as he plays them instead of writing them first, is he jazz then? i think people some don't understand how electronic music is made. these artists aren't sitting in front of their computers typing in lines of code, they're recording themselves playing keyboards (and occasional other instruments) did coltrane cease to be a jazz musician the first time he recorded himself onto multitrack...

quoted 6 lines Sometimes this improv is within a strict form (bebop,

>Sometimes this improv is within a strict form (bebop, > etc.), sometimes it's "free jazz." But programming jazz strips it of its > essential nature. I'm going to make an ass out of myself with this comment, > but a lot of people on this list seem to have a skewed conception of what jazz > is. People like limp 70's fusion, the programmed noodling of various newer > musicians, elevator lite jazz Bukem style, etc.

are coltrane and davis jazz enough for you?

quoted 2 lines Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and electronic

> Anyway, I guess that leaves me questioning the limits of IDM, and electronic > music in general. I think programming can go a really long way...

(see my other post for the reply to this...)

quoted 3 lines In some ways, I would think that DJs are further along than the teeming

> In some ways, I would think that DJs are further along than the teeming > hoards of white boys with sequencers. At least they can almost instantly > choose any record, and any sound ever recorded...

so? i could record any sound onto my hard disk or sampler, and fire off as many different sounds as my housemate (a dj) can fire off different records...does this make either of us acoustic musicians? (well, other than the fact that both of us play guitar...) if a synthesizer player isn't a "real" musician, then is a pianist a "real" musician?

quoted 4 lines So what's my point? Just that I don't mean to flame or insult anyone, but

> So what's my point? Just that I don't mean to flame or insult anyone, but > there's still a fundamental difference between electronic and > electric/acoustic/physical music. And paying lip service to being "jazzy" or > anything else isn't going to change that.

well, i certainly agree with your point here; the reason i listen to electronic music is that it's different from all the other music that i'd heard for the first two decades of my life... i'm not really trying to say that squarepusher et al. really are jazz, as there are many elements of the jazz genre that he doesn't follow...i'm just saying that electronic music isn't at all inferior to acoustic music. np: autechre "doctrine" "a dream is worth a thousand pictures, the mouths of lampreys a thousand more..."

1998-04-12 23:48CheAt 05:32 PM 4/10/98 EDT, KaisrSolze wrote: >>I think of this as basically being programmed

From:: Che <zeus8@synthcom.com>
To:: Intelligent Dumb Music <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:48:08 +0000 ()
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

At 05:32 PM 4/10/98 EDT, KaisrSolze wrote:

quoted 6 lines I think of this as basically being programmed jazz. Not that it isn't

>>I think of this as basically being programmed jazz. Not that it isn't >>doing things never before done with jazz (for instance, extremely flanged >>perfect 96th-note-triplets ascending in perfect linear pitch or volume >>ain't exactly Max Roach or Buddy Rich) > >I really am not feeling this comment at all... Maybe it's just my

flawed>outlook, but programmed jazz isn't jazz at all. The way I see it,>jazz=improvisation. Bahhh...it either moves you or it doesn't. How it's done doesn't matter. Labels are for intellectual wankers. It's about the music, remember? For me, the Bukem Jazz-Lite doesn't move me. It's too nostalgic, too concerned with copping the sound rather than the feeling. in contrast, the new Chocolate Weasel has some tracks that capture the spirit of jazz without sounding like a watered down ripoff. But, to engage in a bit of intellectual wankery, I give you this to ponder. Frank Zappa, one of the greatest improvisational guitar players ever, and considered by many to be engaged in an updated form of jazz, gave up recording with some of the finest musicians in the world & turned to composing with a Synclavier (ultra-high end synthesizer & composition computer) in the last years of his career. I saw a film where he complained that the musicians couldn't capture what was in his head faithfully enough - it was easier to teach the computer. And to quote Frank, "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny". Che

1998-04-13 14:15Irene McCOn 12 Apr 98, Che wrote re: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b) : > Frank Zappa, one of the grea

From:: Irene McC <substar@iafrica.com>
To:: <zeus8@synthcom.com>, <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 16:15:23 +0200
Subject:: (idm) Frank Zappa
Reply to:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

On 12 Apr 98, Che wrote re: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b) :

quoted 4 lines Frank Zappa, one of the greatest improvisational guitar players

> Frank Zappa, one of the greatest improvisational guitar players > ever, and considered by many to be engaged in an updated form of > jazz, gave up recording with some of the finest musicians in the > world & turned to composing with a Synclavier

Hmmm... but do any of his later compositions rock as much as Hot Rats or We're Only In It for the Money or any other one of his earlier 'classics'? I've got The Perfect Stranger (1984) conducted by Pierre Boulez - and I actually can't listen to it. However, Peaches En Regalia is STILL a power kicker any time of day! I *

1998-04-13 20:35Rodney PerkinsOh the irony. A few weeks ago I put together a tape that had consecutive tracks by Aphex T

From:: Rodney Perkins <rdperkins@earthlink.net>
To:: Eric Frans <epf@internetconnect.net>, 'It's Dot Music' <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:35:47 +0000
Subject:: Re: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

Oh the irony. A few weeks ago I put together a tape that had consecutive tracks by Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Cylob and (you guessed it) Frank Zappa. It was "Night School" from Jazz from Hell. That LP sounds like it was done yesterday. You can play it next to the aforementioned artists and it fits right in. BTW, there is a live orchestral version of "G-Spot Tornado" on The Yellow Shark CD.

quoted 2 lines Good to see Zappa mentioned in this thread! For all you who haven't

> >Good to see Zappa mentioned in this thread! For all you who haven't

listened to

quoted 1 line much Zappa and are into IDM, do yourself a favor and check out his _Jazz

>much Zappa and are into IDM, do yourself a favor and check out his _Jazz

From

quoted 1 line Hell_ CD from '87 on Rykodisc. All tracks but one were composed by Frank

>Hell_ CD from '87 on Rykodisc. All tracks but one were composed by Frank

Zappa

quoted 1 line on the Synclavier. After listening to this you'll understand why the studio

>on the Synclavier. After listening to this you'll understand why the studio

quoted 2 lines musicians couldn't keep up with what was in his mind! There was actually a

>musicians couldn't keep up with what was in his mind! There was actually a >video for the track "G-Spot Tornado" from this album, which I vaguely

remember

quoted 1 line seeing awhile back -- all I remember are lightning fast edits to match the

>seeing awhile back -- all I remember are lightning fast edits to match the

pace

quoted 8 lines of the track. Anyone else remember seeing this video?

>of the track. Anyone else remember seeing this video? > > >E r i c F r a n s >epf@internetconnect.net >[cellular] http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf >[si-{cut}.db] http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf/benford >[so-cal idm event page]

http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf/scidm.html

quoted 2 lines on: Frank Zappa - "Damp Ankles"

>on: Frank Zappa - "Damp Ankles" >

1998-04-14 01:00Eric FransChe wrote: > > But, to engage in a bit of intellectual wankery, I give you this to ponder.

From:: Eric Frans <epf@internetconnect.net>
To:: 'It's Dot Music' <idm@hyperreal.org>
Date:: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:00:50 -0700
Subject:: RE: (idm) Jazz (was Re:d'n'b)

Che wrote:

quoted 10 lines But, to engage in a bit of intellectual wankery, I give you this to ponder.

> > But, to engage in a bit of intellectual wankery, I give you this to ponder. > Frank Zappa, one of the greatest improvisational guitar players ever, and > considered by many to be engaged in an updated form of jazz, gave up > recording with some of the finest musicians in the world & turned to > composing with a Synclavier (ultra-high end synthesizer & composition > computer) in the last years of his career. I saw a film where he complained > that the musicians couldn't capture what was in his head faithfully enough - > it was easier to teach the computer. And to quote Frank, "Jazz isn't dead, > it just smells funny".

Good to see Zappa mentioned in this thread! For all you who haven't listened to much Zappa and are into IDM, do yourself a favor and check out his _Jazz From Hell_ CD from '87 on Rykodisc. All tracks but one were composed by Frank Zappa on the Synclavier. After listening to this you'll understand why the studio musicians couldn't keep up with what was in his mind! There was actually a video for the track "G-Spot Tornado" from this album, which I vaguely remember seeing awhile back -- all I remember are lightning fast edits to match the pace of the track. Anyone else remember seeing this video? E r i c F r a n s epf@internetconnect.net [cellular] http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf [si-{cut}.db] http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf/benford [so-cal idm event page] http://www.internetconnect.net/~kdkates/epf/scidm.html on: Frank Zappa - "Damp Ankles"