PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I have been reflecting about creativity and composition in the computer-music world, which is everyday bigger as more people add to this relatively cheap way of having a complete entry-studio at home, and well…, I felt a bit disappointed listening at the quality of music that the web is full of today, coming from thousands of computer-music studios around the world. Most songs are so bad, that unfortunately, I don’t usually listen at them fully because it is painful to spend your time sinking into all these harsh and confusing mixed bull of sounds, I would rather go through these songs for about 30 to 40 seconds each.

I guess this might be happening due to the fact that many none-musicians are composing and posting music online. That makes sense, as technology is accessible to everybody having a computer at home, or at school.

Sometimes this bad quality is not related to the “quality of the sound”, but to "the musical ideas", which are a floating chaos panned and equalised in most unconventional ways, but not because of this, creatively inspiring.

When medieval music was composed hundreds of years ago, using most of all these typical instruments listed down here:

* Chalumeau
* Dulcimer
* Flute
* Harp
* Jew's Harp
* Lute: Lyre
* Mandolin
* Pan-Pipes
* Recorder
* Zither

composers would use these instruments as their “only” musical texture source of inspiration, this is what they had, and every instrument had strong restrictions in terms of expression and were also limited by defined technical difficulties.

It is known to the music historians that the best composers were all that knew in detail how instruments were played, how difficult a passage could be for the musician, how loud the sound could be in the open air, how the same instrument would sound in a closed environment, etc. All this restrictions imposed to composers would influence much the style of music to be created at that epoch.

Then, later, came the wonderful piano, which inspired so many wonderful and expressive compositions, but still there, a piano, it doesn’t matter how wonderful it may be, it has one single type of sound texture. Composers had to oblige themselves to compose in regard to the technical difficulties and characteristics of the instrument.

The same can be said for the whole classical period, and so on.

But… what happened today? Do we perhaps need some good old restrictions?

We don’t have restrictions of any kind: numbers of musicians, numbers of instruments, kind of instruments, distance, loudness, equalization, technical difficulties, anything, everything is posible… and of course I love this idea. We can do virtually any kind of sound imaginable, we can make our sequencers play anything for us, at any speed, we can play a piano at six hands without problems, as we can RECORD everything. Truly amazing, truly magnificent, but too much having has become a way of confusion as well, as I can see when I go through the hundreds of music related forums around the world. So much freedom along with so little artistic creativity!

Having thousands of known instruments and millions of possibilities to create infinite other sounds, without any restriction in terms of creativity, I can see that people don’t know where to go, what to compose, and music is going through a period of creativity-crisis, never seen before.

In the other hand, I have found a relatively important number of musicians that excel in the use of their computers to create truly artistic pieces of ART, great music I may say! But few... if compared with the thousands out there.

I think we had come to a point where we need to go back to the essentials. We need perhaps a return to the source of direct “emotions and drive” that makes us tic to compose, back to the WHY composing rather than with what we compose. I am sure that music could get much better this way.

I’m afraid that if we keep having this frenetic thirst for having more and more instruments and FX, the biggest synths, the top of all technologies and the fastest of computers instate of investing some more energy in art, playing, learning music, composition and related stuff, we may easily end shortening our creativity.

Remember those days where calculators were difficult to find? Only a few had them, well, at that time most people would know how to do some calculations and understood the workings of mathematics, today it is rare to find somebody at street level, which can truly know how to solve mathematical problems without the use of a calculator, some even completely forget about the basic ones.

The same happens with grammar and spell, as word processors correct our grammar, and spell-check programs corrects in second a whole 100 pages writing, so our knowledge of the language gets weaker. In the same way, MIDI does the work for musicians today, perhaps too much I think, and so real skilled musicians are suffering the consequences.

I personally vote for a more humanised music composition. I woudn't like to hear for the rest of my life, machine-music.

Of course, everybody is free to think and compose as they like, this is nothing but my own perception of the music world and nothing else.

I can go on and on about Beethoven knowing nothing about the voice and perhaps even the cello(eventhough he was a violinist as well as a pianist). But he still wrote wonderful music.

The piano does not have only one sound texture as many pianists will tell you. Just compare the sound of Mozart's music with Brahms and Debussy. The listen to Prokofiev and be dazzled at how different the dynamics are.

What composers need most today is to realise what their own limitations are. Only then can they realise what to aspire to in the direction they want to go.

Study of style and technique is essential to a composer's development. Even techno buffs listen and study how sound is organised within a piece.

Paul, when I studied at the Music Conservatory, we had history, and the teacher told us that it was a well known fact that Beethoven had a big dirty room, full of instruments of all kinds, and that he could play “all” of them, just enough to know the technique. I was also told this by an Italian teacher.

Piano:
Of course that a piano can give you several textures, I should have changed the word texture by timber I think.

well, there's always the "easy way" obscurring the "real way".. ya know, like food. Food's always a cool metaphor for music. You have the microwave crap dinners that mimic pasta.. you don't know if it's made of plastic, rubber, or who knows what, but it's some sort of pasta that you can eat within 5 minutes. Well, everyone knows in their hearts that a well cooked pasta that may take well over 30 minutes to prepare, is going to have a much more detailed, richer taste.

Who wins? Well, you've got to say these are two different things. Do real chefs and all the slow food industries suffer from all the crappy insta-fast food on the market? Yes, of course. Do users (eaters) of such crappy food recieve bad influence and develope poor eating habits? Yes. But does this accomodate a new, modern lifestyle? Yes. It's just something new I think. Not that it'll replace the old. Like TV didn't replace cinema, nor did cinema replace radio, nor did radio replace newspapers.

I think the fact that a new kind of people are starting to use music software is cool. That's where we hear all sorts of mistakes, and mistakes given long enough exposure, become correct. That's how we evolve I think. There's nothing right about what's already right... just that there's alot of people agreeing that it's right. Once everyone agrees a certain mistake is right, it becomes right. Ya know, just like there's nothing objective about science, contrary to public belief. Science is just a set of agreements. These agreements is what makes it objective.

So, sure, there are going to be a bunch of bad things coming from the era we're going through right now. Digital music with bad taste.. whatever. There's probably been enough bad music throughout the entire history of man kind. Back in bethoven days, they didn't have the infrastructure, and so the bad mistakes were lost. But now we do, and we can retain both the bad mistakes, and better off ones. I personally think that's cool because we have a more deeper understanding of the overall context if we can see both the top dogs and the underdogs.

I mean, I always wonder about the 2 million composers that didn't make it in the music history book. It may be them that created the basis for the only handful of people that are mensioned in the history of music. So what makes them inherently great? Well, they probably knew more than most people of their time.. which back in those days was crucial. But now? Google it! So... it's hard to say if because the guys who were great back then, may be considered just another "knows alot about music" by modern standards. Maybe with a 60gb iPod that's actually full of music.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2006-03-23 20:40 ]</font>

I agree that most music is crap but there is so much music. I'm sure there is more good music being created every day than I could possibly listen to; if only I had a way to find it. I listen to a streaming station which I really like and there will be more stations and sites in the future that I can trust I am sure. A human filter such as an old fashioned DJ who picks the music by hand is what is needed. If you google "Great Music" you won't find anything. People will never agree on what is quality music and furthermore what music you like when you are 20 you might not like anymore when you are 40 or maybe in just a few months if you listen too much to it. All you need is enough music to listen to yourself and don't worry about what other people are doing. I have a friend I get music from.

Back in Beethoven's day they didn't have a sound engineer saying "We'll fix it in the mix" so those composers had to get it right the first time.

I love Beethoven, don't get me wrong, but I believe Paul Hindemith is the real master at knowing how all the instruments of the orchestra were played.

I think we all have to inspired by something to be creative,unfortunately we live in a world where,if you don't go out and actively seek out inspiration you'll get stuck in inane commercial music,which is all very nice if you like to tap your feet,and what have you,but to inspire anybody,well,no.
We do however have the internet and high speed connections, so to look for something specifically to our liking is virtually without boundaries.
On the commercial music point of view I'm sure it will auto destruct.

I always say the same thing, you’ll find it all over the forum: “music is a language.” As H-Rave says, people’s experiences are reduced to everyday life inside their offices, cars and the like. I would add to these the luck of contact with NATURE: animals, plants, the night, which is also awful! This exclusion of human beings from nature and the increasing ways of doing things through machines and robots makes us less human.

For hundreds of years, countryside people have been taken for fools compared to busy citizens from big cities around the world, taken as the wise ones. This non existent relationship with nature, make people to be farther submerged into their own plastic-superficial lays and empty whims. Whims that are sometimes so far away from nature, that they are “unnatural things”.

I am convinced that all those little things going on in nature that unfortunately, we don’t observe and experience in our everyday life, are part of the foundation of real artistic perception, and so, a concise manifestation in our compositions, of good, creatively inspiring music.

I live in the country. The food is much better in the city and music the same. What do you think country people listen to? Out here in the Shenandoah Valley, young people listen to hiphop, alternative or punk or death metal. The older people prefer classic rock. Same crap as city people. I live in America. They have MTV even in the most remote mountain village. Where are these natural country people you are talking about? They are not here.

Ohhh, America! Of course they have MTV in far away mountains... they have how to. In Chile there are places with no electricity, no water, no cars, no hospitals, no processed food, no nothing, they live like people would use to live 2000 years ago. These people are now getting in touch with modern civilization.

BTW: I have been in several cities and in the country as well, so it is first hand what I say.

It is perhaps better to keep it at music only, as this is a too open topic to come to anything clear. I guess that every country will be quite different in regard to this.

yes, technology makes it's own problems...

"I think we have come to a point where we need to go back to the essentials. We need perhaps a return to the source of direct “emotions and drive” that makes us tic to compose, back to the WHY composing rather than with what we compose. I am sure that music could get much better this way."

This quote from Nestor's original post is the most essential idea, in my opinion. But we can't shy away from the fact that computer music is a great passtime for many young(and less young) people.

I was listening to Nestor's "Campanitas de Ragnhild" lately and understood how inspired he was at the moment he created this music. It is a blessed event when we get inspired in such a way. I believe we all have that creative spark in us.

The knowledge to put this inspiration to good use is the key. Some may think that learning scales and harmony is useless but I believe it is essential in becoming a true musician. My definition of a musician is someone who speaks, reads and writes music.

Once those elementary concepts are learned, the composer can begin to break the rules(whence Eno's Oblique Strategies). Apply classical structure to techno and see what comes out. Or apply techno sounds to a classical piece(ok, Tomita and Carlos did it). But so it only if you are inspired to do so. I have had this project of doing the Rite of Spring with synths a la Tomita for at least 20 years now but never was inspired enough to see the project begin! So I stick to my own thoughts and do the best I can to bring forth my ideas.

Also, "back to the essentials" is a good idea when the white page syndrome appears...

On 2006-03-25 19:20, paulrmartin wrote:
Some may think that learning scales and harmony is useless but I believe it is essential in becoming a true musician.

In the tradition of classical music, there is a huge emphasis on scales and none on rhythm.
If you are going to play scales, at least put some accents in them. Pentatonic scales should be taught first. They are sort of left out of western music until the jazz age.

On 2006-03-25 19:20, paulrmartin wrote:
Once those elementary concepts are learned, the composer can begin to break the rules(whence Eno's Oblique Strategies). Apply classical structure to techno and see what comes out.

On 1995-05, Eno Said:
Africa is everything that something like classical music isn’t. Classical – perhaps I should say “orchestral” – music is so digital, so cut up, rhythmically, pitchwise and in terms of the roles of the musicians. It’s all in little boxes. The reason you get child prodigies in chess, arithmetic, and classical composition is that they are all worlds of discontinuous, parceled-up possibilities. And the fact that orchestras play the same thing over and over bothers me. Classical music is music without Africa. It represents old-fashioned hierarchical structures, ranking, all the levels of control. [...]

On 2006-03-23 20:36, kensuguro wrote:
Once everyone agrees a certain mistake is right, it becomes right. Ya know, just like there's nothing objective about science, contrary to public belief. Science is just a set of agreements. These agreements is what makes it objective.

Hard science (as opposed to anthropology for example) is built on reproducable experiments. There is nothing subjective about the ability reproduce physical or chemical effects and reactions. What are these "agreements" the ignorant public doesn't know about ?

On 2006-03-25 21:37, braincell wrote:

In the tradition of classical music, there is a huge emphasis on scales and none on rhythm.

No emphasis on rhythm ?! If you compare the subtleties and variations of rhythm in classical music to most modern genres then the modern material is quickly revealed as the one-dimensional bland pap that it truly is.

I'd say that it's the incessant head-pounding compressed drums of the modern age which have destroyed all the subtle aspects of rhythm.

When learning music in school, a composer learns about rhythms a whole lot. Even if you learn about non-retrograde rhythms of classical indian music as applied by Olivier Messiaen or how Bartok applied all native rhythms of eastern european countries in his music(i.e. Romanian dances) while further deriving the idea to create his own imaginary folkoric rhythms(Dance Suite).

Listen to Stravinsky's ballet music and tell me rhythm can't be learned from classical music.

In Venezuela, students learn to sight read 5 lines at once: Rhythms in both arms and both feet and a melodic line to be sung! I wish I had this kind of training here in Montreal.

_________________
Are we listening?..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2006-03-26 06:22 ]</font>

Yeah, but what a beat!

This thread reminds me of conversations I've had with my dad....

And while I do agree with many of the things said in this thread I also disagree with a lot of it. fx that there aren't being produced as much good music as there used to. In my opinion we have never before been blessed with such an amount and varaity of good music as we are right now. The big media might not play it but thats not the good musics fault, no "das Mann" and the pursuit of profit is to blame here. But then we have the internet and can go find it ourselves, there's plenty of places to go and look for music, also plenty of places where competent people write about music, and like with everything else you have to find out whos opinion you can trust and whos opinion is not trustworthy.

The attack at socalled "machinemusic" makes me think that there's a lot of prejudice and "instrument-romanticism" going on in here. Phrases like "electronic music are cold and lacks human feeling" comes to mind.
To me the "rise of the machines" within music was a revelation, and the past 10-15 years has been a true musical odessey into new musical territory never before reachable guided by human curiousity and creativity.

As with all music, it's not about which instrument is being used, it's about how it's being used, and there's plenty of examples of good music made using machines. I'll gladly point some of it out for you if you like.

And last, I don't think that because the machines has entered the musicscene, that they will also take over completely, and make "normal" instruments obsolete, why should they? Normal instruments a capable of things that can't be done or imitaded by machines and propebly never will, which is why people will continuesly return to them to get the thrill of playing them.

Thomas

I'm not sure how it is at Juliard but as a kid I remember music teachers telling me to do scales where every note has the same accent. The time is very even and variations are not allowed. This is totally the wrong way to teach music. Modality should not be separated from the other aspects of music! It is no wonder that kids hate to practice and furthermore few classical teachers teach improvisation which is the most fun and creative part about playing music.

Improvisation is considered a part of the composition process. So, unfortunately, instrument teachers are not prone to teach it. Nothing is stopping a student from learn it. All one needs to do is listen and go off on tangents when playing.

I would like to add that I have absolutely nothing against machine music. It is an essential part of music's evolution and has the same merit as any other current such as serial music, italian "bruitismo".

Machines can reproduce extreme rhythms. Frank Zappa cited an example wherein he could do 49 on 51 note groups in one beat with his Synclavier and there is no reason why we couldn't do this with our respective sequencers. Of course, this is an extreme example but you all understand the principle, yes?

This is a copy&past of my own words in the Z, a few years ago, I still believe exactly this:

Something is obvious to me: Music it's not just a bunch of sounds that make you feel well, sad, strested, happy, etc., but the most powerful language available and posible. I have sustained it for ages, and I start to understand in deapth why... Music resides in nature, and reflects the hidden laws existing within it. It has the power to reproduce anything existing in the universe, absolutely any human experience.

Music is a point of convergence among all the universal posible numbers. It has the extraordinary hability to reproduce any posible convination and so, transmiting any posible feeling. Music has the power to create, it can MOVE you doing something, it can push things to happen. Human nature resonates by empathy with sounds and their infinite posible convinations, and so can experience other people's lifes without even have ever met them. Music is like a universal ingeniering scanner, something that can read the universe and then make it sound here, for you.