About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aren't there certain 'stereo' technologies that do indeed record, and reproduce, sound binaurally? For example, did not Thomas Dolby create Dolby surround sound? Or perhaps Lucas' THX? These technologies, I believe, are designed specifically not just to mimic the effect of music as it is heard, but to provide an accurate re-creation.

It's roughly equivalent to IMAX, but in sound.

Now, I will acknowledge that there are several technologies, such as DSP, which do attempt to synthesize the aural effect with a scientific usage of echoes and delays, and this is of course enough to fool the casual listener. I however find much more enjoyment watching movies that are recorded in the proper multi-microphoned format to maximize the viewieng and listening experience.

But I guess your point was that they don't do this with music.

Until that day.

Joe Idoni
SOLO Maryland Coordinator


Post 1

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're right, Joe, these technologies do create stereo sound. It can be useful for separating the instruments from one another, which does create a clearer sound, and reproduces, say, the arrangement of an orchestra. (Though some would argue that this separation only goes to "democratize" the orchestra, where every instrument suddenly fights for the spotlight, and heirarchy is lost...).But all that's really being done, in the end, is doubling the melody to left and right speakers. It works great for sound effects in movies, but it doesn't work for developing melodies. That's why bands like Pink Floyd, who utilized stereo effects to good effect, used the technology mainly for effect, aural trickery, and relied on traditional instruments like guitar and piano for the melodies. (The melody, once recorded, can be moved around the sound spectrum, and this is one of the areas where musicians can take advantage of new technologies to go beyond the live performance, and use the studio as a new medium, not just for reproducing live sound.)
It's just ironic when you think of bands like Pink Floyd as being hi-tech, when in reality, in order to write their most popular stuff, which was the most melodic, they had to revert to traditional instruments (or their synth counterparts) and forms, limiting the technology to being a "sweetener."

Post 2

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It should be noted, also, that not everyone embraced stereo. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, for example, fought to have PET SOUNDS released only in Mono.

Post 3

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmm, I have also an interesting item from Germany, where so-called Open Jazzer are trying to improve on the traditional 12-note scaling. They are trying to improve harmonics and intervals by just making them a tad-bit higher or deeper...

Is this useful, because I have (besides my elementary school music knowledge) no knowledge on music whatsoever (despite enjoy listening and playing a bit piano ;) ).

Post 4

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mmm, very interesting topic.

You can make arguments for both mono & stereo reproduction. I've got the Dusty [Springfield] in Memphis album from '68 (?) and each song is given in both mono & stereo. The mono tracks sound better, but I think that's got more to do with the reproduction of Dusty's voice than anything else. Anyway...

As soon as someone plugged in the first instrument to the first amp, you essentially broke not only a technological connection with the past but also the spatial relationships that had existed between instruments. Whether we like it or not, modern, amplified, studio recorded sound is to a greater or lesser degree, artificial. That's been exacerbated by the advent of electronic music that can only exist as an artificiality looking for some reference point in the real world.

Does it matter? Not one bit, I think. It's the emotions and the sense of life that music evokes that distinguishes it as enjoyable, not the technology used to create it.

Ross

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


In much of blues guitar, the gorgeous salt and vinegar inflections that augment the melody line are the result of string bending, pulling and vibrato. All of these techniques are conscious devices to explore the territory between the twelve tones.


Post 6

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Keyboardist Keith Emerson confirms this claim. Emerson is known for his piano chops as well as his experiments with the Moog synthesizer, and his experiments led him to claim that while certain sounds produced by synths can be interesting, they are not up to the task of being useful in melodic structure, so he found himself using the recreation of acoustic instruments to perform melodies."

And why is this? I don't see how you could dismiss the Moog as "not useful in melodic structure". And the Moog is a primitive instrument by today's standards.

Anyone looking for melody in electronic compositions can go listen to Plaid.


Post 7

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmm, I have also an interesting item from Germany, where so-called Open Jazzer are trying to improve on the traditional 12-note scaling. They are trying to improve harmonics and intervals by just making them a tad-bit higher or deeper...
 
It sounds like you might be talking about several things here (and these "Open Jazzers" might be using these things in various ways).

If you're talking about "higher", you might be referring to changing the frequency of the "A" reference tone. In the U.S., this has traditionally remained at 440, but the reference tone for symphony orchestras, etc., has been steadily creeped up over the years. The idea is you can get an (obviously) "sharper" tone out of an orchestra if it's up at say, 442. There's always discussion about this going on.

As far as improving the harmonics, that might mean you're talking about getting a better sample of a tone (being able to capture more of what is called the overtone series).

If you are talking about "improving" the intervals, you might be talking about temprament, intonation.

So, I don't know exactly what these guys are doing, but I'd imagine it would involve those kind of musical mechanics.

Obviously, you can go beyond the standard 12 tones. Ethnic music has been about this forever, and it's not always about inflecting one of the 12 tones by a bend or a drop- non 12-tone systems can be quite large. Picture in, say, carnatic music how they have many actual tones that lie between our semitones. Notes that are named.

And then of course there are modifications of the diatonic scale and its modes (e.g. Hungarian Minor, Gypsy Minor, etc.).

As to the subjects covered in the article, I think Joe treated it pretty objectively, compared to the way it usually gets handled. Musicians are used to hearing this, have been for years- everytime some kind of technology comes out, it's not "real" music any more. None of us take that seriously. It's always along the same lines- electric guitarists get told that their guitars are so easy to play, and that the line devices are doing all the work, etc., etc. Most of the time you hear it from other musicians who are technophobic, or feel threatened. Sure, now everyone can do things with tools like Garage Band, Acid, etc.- all the loop libraries and such. This is and always has been about extending the compass- it never takes away, it just adds. There's never anything that stops you from accessing bare-bones recordings. If anything, you can get very good cleaned up old mono recordings more than ever now.

There is no death or de-emphasis of melody, harmony, etc. There is only widening. If you think otherwise, you are leading with a purely Western ear, and are not being mindful of the existence of world musics, much of which does not work with the elements in the same hierarchical fashion.

Sometimes I like listening to very old music (Persian-influenced, in particular). If you like that, listen over at www.radiodarvish.com .

best,
r








Post 8

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I rather like "remixes", if they are done in the right way. They have to improve or reimagine the original content (f.e. HipHop uses such devices in much of their songs, many in not so pleasant ways, but also some in new ways). Also, new electronic devices give the chance to employ new ways to break the somewhat repetitive way that has come to many a song.
Isn't the E-guitar the most respectable (and the keyboard) show-off that electronic music sounds good and has its merits in originality?

Post 9

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Again, while I am not arguing against technology in music, the main argument is that certain types of tones and effects are not conducive to melodic composition. Many artificial tones are created with the vertical stacking method, where instead of changing pitch through scale divisions (whether they be Western or Oriental), they change pitch through the use of envelope filters and other effects. The shapes are like slides, up and down, or they seem to get fat and thin. The shape of the notes are "morphed" and the more this happens, the harder it becomes to write a melody.
My theory as to why this happens in ambient dance music is because merely holding a note over a repetitive pattern is...boring. Even for "tribal hippies." To repeat a pattern over and over across the same rhythm is simple repetition. But with the tone manipulation available, the monotony is broken up not by playing melodies based on scales, but by manipulating the tones, giving the mind the change it needs. Rand and Jourdain both remark, though, that no music has ever been written totally based on slides; at SOME point, there has to be a break. (Else it's like a rollercoaster ride!).
Notice that in the case of ambient, house, etc., the music is the modern equivalent of the 60's drug soundtrack. The equipment and drugs are different, and oil slides have been replaced with computer fractals, but the music's purpose is the same: to induce a trance-like state of mind. Certain melodic fragments may appear, but for the most part, the emphasis is on rhythm and texture. The difference is that in the 60's, the limited equipment meant more scale-based textures, and the original disco from the 70's was actually pretty tuneful, the new stuff is mostly beats with hints of tonality.

(This isn't new, either; religious dervishes and tribal music have used this technique to invoke visions and trances for centuries. The effect is to minimize left -brained thinking, which is supposedly what puts together melodies, to emphasize right brained thinking.)

So, of course, synths and stereo CAN and HAVE been employed for melodic development. As Rich wrote: "There is no death or de-emphasis of melody, harmony, etc. There is only widening." Potentially, yes. It's in the way that it's used, and the prominent use of it has been in techno and ambient/new age music (another variation on the religious trance.) This is where psychology and philosophy affect musical development. As Rich insightfully observes:

"If you think otherwise, you are leading with a purely Western ear, and are not being mindful of the existence of world musics, much of which does not work with the elements in the same hierarchical fashion."

This is the crux of the musical matter: NOT the technology, but the mind behind the tech. Example: In the capitalist high of Reagan's 80's, in the beginning of the computer boom, genres such as New Wave employed synths and even rock bands like Rush became techno-geeks. The minds needed to create this technology had to be focused and sharp, and this reflected in the music. The synths were employed melodically and songs had structure. In the 90's on, we start to see a remergence of the hippie esthetic, along with a renewed interest in Eastern culture that mirrored the 60's. ( I personally witnessed this change in high school; it seemed that in the space of 1 year, all the "preppy" kids came back from vacation wearing ponchos, long hair, and listening to the Greatful Dead.) The rise of raves and "Acid House" was a return to the "freak outs" of the sixties. (Instead of acid we had Exstasy...). Surely this was a rejection of the "Western" ear in favor of "non-heirarchal" fashion. Whether or not one agrees with the change on a moral level depends on one's philosophy, but this is the development we have.

Post 10

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I totally understand your statement, Joe.

It does seem kind of like a copout at times- they just work with the texture. A lot of these guys don't even understand basic patch construction, they're just running with it. I mean, they might find a certain kind of patch they like, and that patch might already be built from say 4 sampled tones (a tone being the smallest unit). Then they stack a bunch of those together. Basically, the bigger the stack, the more unwieldy, less nimble it is. A lot of this gets done out of temptation- it is very easy to fall into when you do sequencer programming. Too much paint. The filter sweeping stuff doesn't bother me as much, actually, it can be a nice added dimension if you don't lean on it too much. All this is one big reason I like how both W. Orbit and Prince produce house grooves- they make things stick out and stand on their own.

Now, morphing is a good idea in general, because it gets you away from stock sounds. It's not always worth the trouble, but at least you stand a chance of creating an original sounding texture.

I'll tell you who does a good job with synth stuff- check out the soundtracks that they use on the CSI TV series (the original Vegas one)- I haven't looked at who's behind that, but they are on the game.


Post 11

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, I like much of the sound effects myself, and love exploring tones and possibilities. I (had) a MicroKorg, which is like a mini Moog, and it had all the knobs and wheels to twiddle with, fun stuff! Personally, I think the extended tones and filter sounds are great for creating a backdrop or bed for the melody to sit in. ( I think that's what William Orbit does right with his classical covers.)

The effect is probably closer to what's done with sustained tones, vibrato, and reverb with acoustic instruments. Even with acoustic sounds, you have to vary the tones a bit, otherwise, it sounds flat and rote. EXPRESSION!!! It's gotta have expression, and that's what makes one performer better or different than another.

The key is that there has to be something to express...

(I'll offer up a devil's advocate theory in defense of knob twiddlers and samplers: They take compositions from real composers and play producer by remixing and altering the tones. It's a division of labor theory, and if we recognize it as such, then there can be some justification for what they do...as long as we're not calling them composers...re-arrangers, maybe?).

Post 12

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cool, will check out the CSI stuff...

Post 13

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max, what's an e-guitar? Are you referring to an e-bow or something else?
Always wanted to try an e-bow...

Post 14

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Try an E-bow. It takes a lot of fiddle-fucking to get anything good out of it, but it's interesting.

I play midi guitar, and one of the things I'm doing is starting to use the bottleneck slide with midi patches (usually you have to take the synth off chromatic to do anything useful). I think if you used an E-bow with a blended midi/guitar patch it could get nuts.


Post 15

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The key is that there has to be something to express...
 
Indeed. For me it means using a number of different compositional strategies. Sometimes, that means just starting out with a tone that I usually don't use. Or trying unconventional blends that don't make "sense"- you know, a harmonica patch with a koto patch, or whatever.

I have a lot of toys. But the truth is, more and more over the years, I am writing straight from my head quite a bit before I even go to the instrument. And when I go to the instrument lately, it's almost always been just an acoustic guitar, a pencil, and a book of staff paper. I lay all the color on last. In that respect, I continue to do my build from a strong melodic standpoint. The stronger the melodies are, the faster I can roll the piece with the band- even if the melody is not shown in the arrangement, if it's there, they hear it. I just did two pieces along that line of thinking (not showing the melody) and the violinist was able to nail it right out of the gate- it's like she heard it in there anyway.

So I guess the two main ways I'm writing are: total focus and preparation, or total non-focus and experiment.




Post 16

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Both ways certainly work. I remember Rand talking about the writing process, sometimes she'd start out with an idea, other times, like the writer in THE SIMPLEST THING IN THE WORLD, it's just brainstorming with "preset" ideas that get changed around. There's no one right way, for sure.

Post 17

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Much the same way as composing a rendering... variations on themes, etc...
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/24, 5:42pm)


Post 18

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I listen to everything in mono. I don't have much choice as I'm deaf in one ear.

Post 19

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No DARK SIDE OF THE MOON for you...



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.