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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
no more rugby, ok?
To:
Date:
Tue, 30 Oct 2001 04:09:29 -0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] Eno's opinion of 'computer music'
Msg-Id:
<DAV134ddqN19bBLmUjS0001775e@hotmail.com>
Mbox:
idm.0110.gz
i can certainly understand the assertion that a lot of today's computer music is utter shit. Honestly though, it's not much of a groundbreaking, new or even interesting statement to make. a lot of the music of any genre and any time period is utter shit. it may not be an opinion which i'm brave enough to embrace as being my own, but it's worth looking at the possibility that perhaps things are about the same as they have been since the first developments of human culture and art. there is a lot of shit and a little bit of interesting stuff going on. when it comes down to it, it's the honest effort to do something interesting that seems to make the difference. i'm almost tempted to think that the main difference is in trying to do something which is interesting to one's own attentions rather than trying to do something which one would assume could be interesting or pleasing to a potential audience. (the stunningly pure attempt to keep yourself from being bored.) aside from that, in terms of breaking new ground... i think willingness to experiment and misuse current technology and structure is key. once again, just a viewpoint... not necessarily one which i agree with completely... (disclaimers, disclaimers... lack of confidence can lead to more expansive vistas...) i'm sure everyone knows analog purists. i had a discussion with an analog purist recently. a friend of mine. a good part of the gist of his argument seemed almost to be a righteous indignation at the fact that all the experimentation he did for years... hooking two four tracks together, making loops, playing things backwards and at altered speeds.. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum... all these things can now be emulated by the a few keystrokes or mouse clicks on a computer... i also went through years of experimentation on the analog front... using cheap cassette four-track recorders hooked together in odd configurations with guitar pedals... i think the difference is in doing what you can with the technology and in trying to do more than you can do or should be able to do with the technology. to try to misuse it to interesting or intriguing effect. you can do the same thing with computers... just on different and new levels. thus experimentation evolves with new and old technology. (in my opinion.) granted, a lot of this can be considered to be pre-compositional. which gets us into the context which i think eno was in with his statements. sonic experimentation is very musical by itself. but it is not what everyone considers to be cohesive "music". traditionalists (of which, in this context, Eno could definitely be considered) demand that "music" has to have "macro" compositional aspects... certain gestures (cliches?) which indicate compositional development... almost like structures in poetry... sonnets... haiku... or structures in pop songs... verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, etc... repetition almost always seems key in this definition of music. this is why perhaps eno wouldn't like otto von schirach's "8,000 B.C." or any number of other records for that matter. rarely is Eno described as a traditionalist. i've never spoken with Eno. but the description seems fitting here. on a certain level. perhaps, if one were to desire to achieve merit in both worlds, one would have to experiment long enough and thoroughly enough that the experimentation becomes an integral part of the compositional process. i think this happens on its own. unless someone is simply trying to emulate the sound of another artist. which happens frequently. very frequently. i also don't think there is anything wrong with set structures. many people view them as a "cop-out" i can understand that viewpoint and even agree with it in a lot of instances... but i think structures can also be viewed as a challenge. taking an idea which is individualized and experimental (thus somewhat volatile) and applying a preset format or structure to it can have incredibly interesting results. maybe it's just this: the less important thing is HOW you make music. the more important thing is THAT you make music. interesting music. selfishly interesting music. or maybe i've got all my hypotheses entirely backward. either way, it's all bullshit rhetoric, opinion, and philosophy. anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org