179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

[idm] dogme music -> dogma00

1 message · 1 participant · spans 1 day · search this subject
2002-02-25 18:14david turgeon [idm] dogme music -> dogma00
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2002-02-25 18:14david turgeonwhoever asked this, > > Are there any similar disciplines when it comes to making music? >
From:
david turgeon
To:
Date:
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:14:55 -0500
Subject:
[idm] dogme music -> dogma00
permalink · <5.1.0.14.0.20020225125107.01dc87e0@www.steam.ca>
whoever asked this,
quoted 4 lines Are there any similar disciplines when it comes to making music?> > Are there any similar disciplines when it comes to making music? > > Specifically ones with a standard set of criteria. One where you had to > > submit a song/album to be certified by a central authority would be even > > better.
there is a "dogme" for machine music called dogma00: http://commie.oy.com/dogma00_main.html from the website: -- snip -- dogma00 is a post-Luddite guideline for making computer-based rhythm music. The resulted music composed by following the dogma00 rules sounds as alienated and unhuman as possible. There are three ways to follow the rules. You can be either... - an engineer member. As an engineer member you just follow strictly the rules. Exceptions are not allowed. - a consumer member. This membership allows you to creatively follow the rules. In short, any exception is allowed. or - a machine member. Machine members of dogma00 try to describe the feelings of the machines. Therefore machine members are allowed to bypass the rhythm and sound quality rules. -- snip -- the people at commie.oy.com offer such music as free MP3, as well as other kinds of electronic music, so you should browse around if you're piquéd. i think their guidelines are close in spirit to that of dogme 95, as they will prefer lo-fi music made with means available to most anyone at a low price (which i think is the most important aspect of dogme 95 anyway.) the "alienated and unhuman" part to me is just a stylistic gadget, but it yields some interesting guidelines: "You should listen to your synthesizer's will for the sound it wants to play." there are many ways to interpret this sentence (just as with any dogma). personally i use a lot of obscure rules in my own music (which is called camp <http://www.notype.com/drones/artists/camp.html>) which mostly involve using the same versions of the same outdated, "unprofessional" software (fruityloops, audiomulch) over & over. in that respect, the thing about the synthetiser's will for the sound it wants to play is interesting to me; there are many things which a program such as fruityloops (particularly an old version) DOESN'T allow you to do; & you don't have to try & emulate that feel but rather work with what you have. this of course will not work with all software; i can't imagine someone making a musical career out of working with sayit! or granulab (but who knows.) rules can also apply to performance: recently i have played music with 3 CD players (with prepared CDRs containing loops & surprises to use) & a mixer. it requires some preparation, but basically, once it's done, any soundboard can be your instrument. rules are interesting if they are sufficiently restrictive as to be accessible, rather than impenetrable. i'm not yet certain if that last sentence made any sense whatsoever. have a nice day ~ david --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org