RoR: Forum

I have to say there is nothing new under the sun on this one. I cannot see technology having a negative effect on the advancement of expression. Melody is a factor of composition entirely, a bunch of kids fooling with filters and loops doesn't seem much different than tribal drums. Some will embrace it because it requires little prowess and zero originality and a few will get good at it. Seems these things rarely have last appeal or influence. It doesn't stop other people from expressing themes melodically.

Sipes

Post 21

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:03pm

I understand, Bill. I was thinking about this today. Is it alarmist to say melody is dying? Probably. I think of all the attempts in the past to introduce atonal music, or avant garde, or what have you. But, it's also interesting in light of the record companies and stores trying to push techno music as the next revolution. (For the most part, they are failing, doesn't mean they aren't trying, though!). What I've observed is the same insipid melodic material continues to sell, say, the Celine Dion, Diana Krall type of music. (Insipid's just my opinion, settle down all you Krall fans...).

But, notice the way rap music has taken off. You can't deny there's a revolution there, as far as culture goes...it's been embraced by many, and commercialized into everything, including breakfast cereal commercials. And look at many of the club hits with a rap base, very little musical lines, mostly rhythmic. (Ballads, though, usually remain melodic.)

Post 22

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:06pm

I'll offer an argument of technology gone astray, look at Frank Gehry's structures in architecture. He claims to use computers to design his buildings, and the claim is that the Experience Music Project building in Seattle is designed after sound waves generated on computer. It looks like he crumpled a piece of paper and went from there. It's an eyesore, and it's the result of a fraud with a computer and no comprehension of form and function.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/24, 7:26pm)

Post 23

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:10pm

Let's not confuse content with presentation. Not the same.

Multi-microphone recording in situ gives the best approximation of the actual sound-field, as it pics up the actual phase-shifts (time-delay of tones) and group-delays (time-delay of spectrum) of a mix of different instruments.

DSP simulations basically "listen" for a characteristic frequency ranges, and introduce a calculated approximation of what is typically the real thing. But once you mix a bunch of instruments, its would take detailed information of the instruments, their arrangement on stage, et. for a DSP to transform them.

Then again, taking any old sound and moving it between four speakers gives the sensation the source is moving.

Scott

Post 24

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:31pm

Wonder why Quadrophenia never caught on but surround sound did...

(Useless trivia for the day: Disney was a pioneer in this field with his "Fantasound" technology for his Fantasia presentation.)

Post 25

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:32am

I was wondering when someone would longingly mention quad. We even had quad FM broadcasts. But, the coding was different. There were more or less two kinds of quad. Real discrete quad (4 independent channels) was one. Then there was the type where the rear speakers were set for back hall ambience.

It was fun to do drugs to. Best when playing quad 8 tracks.

ELP toured with a quad front system. Nothing like a giant quad system whooshing circles around an outdoor stadium gig.

rde
Glad he made it through that decade.

Post 26

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:16pm

We really need to take into account the decentralized power of musical technology -- we get a lot more crap and a lot more unique and beautiful jewels full of melody, many of which never get heard by more than a few thousand music/genre hounds. Its easy to point to the crap and to show its growing by the minue.

Music has never had it better, we listen in a blessed age of musical diversity. Always had a hankerin for creole infused drill and bass samba created Finnish nutters? I'm sure there's at least 8 albums that have come out in the last 5 years that fit that description. Try getting those records 10 years ago without ending up on a documentary about eccentrics ;)

Post 27

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:06pm

Being short of time, I was going to post a quick link to an article covering phase-fidelity. I Googled away, and quickly found ... In Praise of Live Music, by Adam Reed. SOLO kicks ass!

Post 28

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:07pm

I depends on how you view the invention of INSTRUMENTS. Do they all just mimic the human body? Singing, whistling, humming, stamping, drumming, and snapping are rudiments.

What, then, was the invention of the LYRE that it was ascribed to the god HERMES, the cunning trickster god at that?

If stereo is evil, then so is the violin.

I agree 100% that stereo is often misused. So are violins.

Michael

Post 29

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:09pm

Mick: " We really need to take into account the decentralized power of musical technology...Music has never had it better..."

In terms of distribution and fidelity, sure. But maybe it's more accurate to say that the consumer and the artist have it better, choice wise; from more of a business and product standpoint than an artistic standpoint can it said to be better.

True, the technology HAS given anyone who cares to take a shot at it the chance to record an album of whatever they fancy; but I don't know if that in itself means much regarding pure musical development...maybe...let me chew it a little...

People have been able to compose for centuries,but it didn't mean it would have an audience. The decentralization allows for more distribution possibilities of the recording medium (viny, cd, mp3) on the individual level. But there's always been a grassroots way of communicating music, thinking minstrels and troubadors.

One could argue that the greatest musical innovations have been by Western composers who had the TIME AND MONEY provided by courts and kings to marshall the orchestra, arrange the score, etc. The modern parallel would be the servitude of the musician to the record company, which, for a long time, was the only way to access recording technology. But in the old days, there was a limited audience for, say, Beethoven, because scores were copied by hand and mass production wasn't available. It was time and money, not technology, that enabled the classical composers to pursue their craft, especially when considered that most of the creation was done straight out of their heads.

It is true that the medium will affect the form of the music; consider the iPod and iTunes. Most songs cost 99 cents on iTunes, and they are usually of the shorter 3 minute pop song format. One CAN download longer pieces, even operas, but there seems to be more demand for the shorter songs. (And the Beatles WHITE ALBUM and DARK SIDE OF THE MOON are currently not available for sale on iTunes because of the fear of destroying the continuity of the concept album). The emphasis has shifted from albums as integrated works back to the days of the single (and the one hit wonder!). For now, this means that the preferred format is the shorter format, which will have an effect on compositions. Who knows what will happen next, it's anyone's guess...

Post 30

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:11pm