What is music?
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
it...
It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
(ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
other people's slants on the subject.
Let it rip, daddy-o.
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
http://www.mp3.com/zoogzrift/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Patrick Neve
> What actually comprises music?
Music is sound with intention. That's it.
____________
| |
|_____ |
| / /\ |
|___/__/__\__|
|____________|
Splat's Zappa Page
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~splat/zappapage.html
Bill
>
> What actually comprises music?
Organized sound.
Amenhotep IV
I did, just a few seconds ago. It was amazingly musical too.
Mondolunch
testimony from the late FZ, I think music is whatever you put a fram
around.... Music according to Debbie Gibson might not be what I call GOOD
music, or rap for that matter, but it all poots forth into the scattegory of
music.. take Frank and Captain Beefheart when they made Trout Mask.. that
was interesting but not as good as FZ's stuff, but then again, some really
die heart CB fans would be UPINARMAGE about that last statement I made..
MONDO!
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:371122ff...@news.primenet.com...
thunderjack
As Frank said, you can put a frame around anything and call it art. Some
people make clowns on velvet. Then you've got the guys like Dali.
What's this got to do with music?
Well, everything, including colors, vibrates and music is the
organization of vibrations. Theoretically, you could put the vibrations we
call orange and chartreuse together and, once you've framed them, call them
music.
As long as you define the framed thing you've created as music, it
doesn't matter what anyone else thinks; it's music.
The question then is, who's gonna buy it?
It really doesn't matter, though, if ANYbody buys it. It may only be
music to you but, as long as there's an intellect capable of imposing the
name MUSIC on a thing, that thing IS music.
As far as GOOD music is concerned, I figure GOOD music is in the ear of
the behearer.
The value I place on music is the same value I place on being. I can't
move through a day without experiencing music, in many forms, all around me.
The wind, the birds, the car horns, the Muzak in Sears, all penetrate my
being with vibrations I identify as music. If the wind blows or a bird sings
and I perceive that sound and translate it within the framework of my
existence, I've heard music.
Personally, I like imposing sounds of the real world on my "structured"
sounds. I'm no great composer but I like the sounds I make. Fortunately,
perhaps, you'll probably never hear them.
keep on vibratin',
-thunderjack-
Zoogz Rift wrote in message <371122ff...@news.primenet.com>...
Greg Carson
<The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
>GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
>are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
>concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
>interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
>embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
>music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>it...
>
>It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
>(ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
>and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
>confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
>other people's slants on the subject.
>
>Let it rip, daddy-o.
>
>http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
>http://www.mp3.com/zoogzrift/
>alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Well I hate to sound real simple about it, but if you enjoy the sound
waves that goes into your ears, it is music.
frank
> What actually comprises music?
the *wilful* (and skillful?) influence on/arrangement of unsuspecting
air molecules? the express or implied agreement between musician(s)
and/or listener(s) that these particular air molecules should be
*perceived* as music?
> What are the essential elements of GOOD music?
if the above statements are true, the definition of GOOD or BAD music
would solely depend on the specific terms of said agreement ... if you
and i would agree that the sound of the pope's heartbeat on tomorrow
afternoon between 5:00 and 5:05 pm EST *is* good music, *it would be
good music* ...
> How does music go around in your head, and
> what kind of value do you place on it...
to me, music is indeed THE BEST ... if i had to choose, i'd rather try
to spend the rest of my life alone than without music.
YMMV ...
------------------------------------------------------------
frank behnsen, * illustration | fb_illu...@csi.com
contract artist * GUI design | CompuServe: 100762,3326
------------------------------------------------------------
frank
> Music is sound with intention. That's it.
much better than my attempt of a definition. do you think your staement
would also apply if it's "only" the listeners who intend to perceive a
sound as music?
Mark
<The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>How does
>music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>it...
Music is an aspect of that which many people call "God" or "Goddess,"
expressed as sound in space.
>Let it rip, daddy-o.
dane...@my-dejanews.com
alt.fan.zoogz-rift wrote:
> What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
> GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
> are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
> concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
> interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
> music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> it...
>
> (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
> and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
> confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
> other people's slants on the subject.
Science my ass, good music is what makes you stop, tilt your head, and makes
you say "FUCK YEAH!"... my two cents daniela
"I am the trick, my mother played on the world"
- Silver Jews
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Geir Corneliussen
ideas floating around. They are all made out of soundwaves.
Imaginary music can exsist too, but only in the mind of the
imaginarererrrrrrr.
Geir Corneliussen
Friendly Little Finger
http://home.sol.no/~corn/zappa.htm
msouthg
c45-011-vty59.as.wcom.net>, frank <fb_illu...@csi.com> writes
>air molecules?
Still true for a deaf audience?
Bit like the Zen tree falling in an empty forest.
--
Mick MAG: 11034
'Reply to ' address is valid.
<*/*> NINJA <*/*>
music = sound / time
what ever happened to all the fun in the world?
sonny
> What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
> GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
> are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
> concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
> interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
> embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
> music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> it...
>
> It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
> (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
> and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
> confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
> other people's slants on the subject.
>
> Let it rip, daddy-o.
>
> http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
> http://www.mp3.com/zoogzrift/
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
I, too, have had this question on my spongey-grey for years. The only
certainty about music is that the hills are alive with it.
sonny
Martin Gregorie
>Zoogz Rift wrote:
>>
>> What actually comprises music?
>
>Organized sound.
So, you include speech within music?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
gregorie |+44 (0171) 637 9111
@ |
logica |
. |All opinions expressed are solely those
com |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
scott hand
>How does
>music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>it...
Music is cool. Good music is music with interestingness.
scott
scott hand
>Patrick Neve <sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>> Music is sound with intention. That's it.
>
>much better than my attempt of a definition. do you think your staement
>would also apply if it's "only" the listeners who intend to perceive a
>sound as music?
>
I had a job for a while where I had to spend a few hours a day sitting on a
sofa (no soda, unfortunately) in a furniture warehouse looking through the
warehouse doors at the highway which passed by outside. Traffic being my
only stimulus, I decided that the sounds of cars passing was music and
listened to it as such. Sometimes it was good music and sometimes it was
just lame ambient.
scott
Bill
>
> Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Zoogz Rift wrote:
> >>
> >> What actually comprises music?
> >
> >Organized sound.
>
> So, you include speech within music?
Sure, why not? The differentiation between speech and singing is rather
arbitrary -- speech has pitch and rhythm, just like singing.
Patrick Neve
> Well I hate to sound real simple about it, but if you enjoy the sound
> waves that goes into your ears, it is music.
No way, and for two reasons.
One, that's the critical argument, that the interpretation overrides the
artistic intent, which is bullshit. Just because you don't like it
doesn't mean it's not music.
Two, the beautiful sound of chirping birds is not music. It's just birds
trying to get laid.
Chris Ekman
>
> Two, the beautiful sound of chirping birds is not music. It's just
> birds trying to get laid.
Yeah, but wasn't, say, "Motherly Love" just Frank trying to get laid?
Chris Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Luis Dimieri
Music?
it is a languaje... a way to express something
some people paint
some people write
some people make sounds
Good music?
it depends on the listener....no way to define this...
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
AlecH
writes
>In article <371122ff...@news.primenet.com>,
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift wrote:
>> What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
>> GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
>> are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
>> concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
>> interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
>> music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>> it...
>>
>> (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
>> and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
>> confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
>> other people's slants on the subject.
>
>you say "FUCK YEAH!"... my two cents daniela
>
>"I am the trick, my mother played on the world"
> - Silver Jews
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Got to agree with daniela although everyone has different perceptions of
what is "musical" to them.
Regards
--
Landlord.......A flagon of your finest quaffing ale if you please....
And send it to my chamber with a freshly scrubbed wench....
Michael Gula
> Let it rip, daddy-o.
As for music, I haven't the slightest idea of what it is. But I
do know what I like.
--
SIGNATURE FILE?! WHAT SIGNATURE FILE??
To reply remove MORESPAM from the address.
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
<cto...@ixlmemphis.com> wrote:
>Hello, Zoogz and all AFFZ peeples,
> As Frank said, you can put a frame around anything and call it art. Some
>people make clowns on velvet. Then you've got the guys like Dali.
> What's this got to do with music?
> Well, everything, including colors, vibrates and music is the
>organization of vibrations. Theoretically, you could put the vibrations we
>call orange and chartreuse together and, once you've framed them, call them
>music.
> As long as you define the framed thing you've created as music, it
>doesn't matter what anyone else thinks; it's music.
> The question then is, who's gonna buy it?
> It really doesn't matter, though, if ANYbody buys it. It may only be
>music to you but, as long as there's an intellect capable of imposing the
>name MUSIC on a thing, that thing IS music.
> As far as GOOD music is concerned, I figure GOOD music is in the ear of
>the behearer.
> The value I place on music is the same value I place on being. I can't
>move through a day without experiencing music, in many forms, all around me.
>The wind, the birds, the car horns, the Muzak in Sears, all penetrate my
>being with vibrations I identify as music. If the wind blows or a bird sings
>and I perceive that sound and translate it within the framework of my
>existence, I've heard music.
This is the most thoughtful, intelligent answer yet. I agree with
pretty much all that you've said here, but here are my personal slants
on the subject.
Defining music or ART is impossible, and not really worthy of
contemplation. When we talk of GOOD music or art, the key word here
is GOOD. What is GOOD? Well, here's my answer to that:
When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
Any works, devoid of these two essential ingredients, is fraudulent
crap intended to con or manipulate me, and I refuse to fall for it
(i.e., "PRODUCT"). Therefore, for me, it's not the final music or art
that really matters--it's the presence of two traits I deeply admire:
INTELLECT and EFFORT. Salvador Dali said, "No masterpiece was ever
created by a lazy artist." Bingo. Garage bands making feedback may
be making "music" in a sense, but it certainly isn't GOOD music. No
intellect, no effort. Turning a urinal upside down and calling it
"Fountain" (as a "Ready-Made") doesn't use a hell of a lot of
intellect or effort, but it does use some, and gets a little closer to
earning my respect. Whether I LIKE the music or art, to whatever
degree, is an entirely different conversation. I don't have to like
something just because I acknowledge that it's good. There's lots of
good, hell, GREAT music and art out there I just can't stand, for
whatever esthetic reasons. I don't like Beethoven. I don't like
orchestral music in general (I'm a drum, percussion freak), but I
still acknowledge much of it's greatness, because of the presence of
intellect and effort. I don't like Monet, and hell, I don't really
like Van Gogh--but I love Dali and Picasso, and yes, I enjoy and
respect Jackson Pollack, because I know there's more there than meets
the eye. What I don't respect, or consider GOOD, is commercial crap
thrown together by non-artists to imitate that which has been
commercially successful in the past; or mere "impulse" art/music
(jerkoff improvisations done by musicians too lazy to work to create
something more substantial); or "music" created by all these NEW
FANGLED COMPUTER PROGRAMS, "performed" by non-musicians through MIDI
technology--people who know essentially nothing about the facts and
nuances of music, but who can easily create "instant" music because
the program does all the work for them. When people talk about Frank
Zappa in these groups, it's true there are lots of reasons people can
find him and his recordings to be offensive, but one (at least one
who's paying the least bit of attention) can't deny the driving forces
of intellect and effort put behind the creation of all of it. True
for some, but apparently untrue for a vast majority of others who
throw garbage everyday into the cd racks at our local record stores,
making it practically impossible for a consumer to dig through all
that AWARD WINNING, POPULAR crap to find anything of substance worthy
of the money and time required to check it out. The ol' needle in a
haystack routine. All these LOUSY bands, coupled with this "I'm okay,
you're okay" attitude, does the consumer an injustice, which is why I
take the high ground, saying "If you can't do something GOOD, please
don't do anything at all." If "artists" used their intellects, and
put forth some effort, they'd learn the knowledge and attain the
skills necessary to make something GOOD. THEN they can throw their
creation at the wall, and see what sticks. Until then, the world has
more than enough BAD music and art, stinking up our air. We don't
need any more.
Anyone who lets ROLLING STONE, MTV or THE GRAMMYS convince them of
what's GOOD or BAD needs to have their fucking heads examined... (and,
sadly, almost everyone around you seems to be guilty of just that...)
Will you confront them? Will you teach them? Will you make a
difference? DO YOU EVEN CARE?
Taking a stand frequently involves becoming unpopular--in this debate
of music, who's willing to take that chance?...
In the rehearsal studio where my band is currently rehearsing, there
are something like 8 band rooms. Whenever we take a break, and sit
there and listen to all the bands in the other rooms, I recently
noticed that THEY'RE ALL ESSENTIALLY PLAYING THE SAME SONG! And it's
not even a particularly good song at that! Is this GOOD? Does the
world need more endless minute variations of this same song? Are
these people REALLY musicians, or composers, or artists? Where did
they get it into their heads that all of this was OKAY????????? Here
I am, struggling with 12 fucking notes, pulling my hair out to take
somehow take music someplace where I (or anyone else, for that matter)
have never quite gone before (tricky business, especially if one wants
to keep a "rock and roll" appearance), and then I hear all these
GROOVY HEAVY METAL ROCK BANDS, posing in front of their mirrors,
waving their long hair and flashing their tattoos, playing the same
old shit, over and over and over again.
I think I've just given myself a headache. :P (lol--yeah, I
know--I've given you one too...)
As my mentor, Mr. Zappa, proclaimed, "It's so fucking great to be
alive, boys and girls..."
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 6:41 PM, Zoogz Rift <mailto:The Liquid Moamo> wrote:
>>How does
>>music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>>it...
>
>Music is cool. Good music is music with interestingness.
I agree. Which brings us to the loaded question: WHAT DOES IT TAKE
TO MAKE MUSIC "INTERESTING?" (see my other post for my personal views
on that answer)
Greg Carson
<sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Greg Carson wrote:
>> Well I hate to sound real simple about it, but if you enjoy the sound
>> waves that goes into your ears, it is music.
>
>No way, and for two reasons.
>One, that's the critical argument, that the interpretation overrides the
>artistic intent, which is bullshit. Just because you don't like it
>doesn't mean it's not music.
>Two, the beautiful sound of chirping birds is not music. It's just birds
>trying to get laid.
That is true if I don't like it, for me it is still music but music I
do not like.
Two Dance music is what humans use to get laid does that mean it is
not music, cause someone is trying to get laid.
msouthg
<vida...@qx.doh!.net> writes
>Traffic being my
>only stimulus, I decided that the sounds of cars passing was music and
>listened to it as such. Sometimes it was good music and sometimes it was
>just lame ambient.
I had to drive a tractor (agricultural variety) down the A12 (like an
interstate) and it's top speed was 14 m.p.h. After a while I got into some
Steve Reich/Philip Glass "Om's" with the engine.
Jerry Hull
Goddam, Zoogz still can rant! Take this, you spineless bastard <sound of
folding chair striking cerebrum of pathetic cretin>! Hoo-hah, what's for
lunch?
--
Jer
"However far you may travel in this world, you will still occupy
the same volume of space". Traditional Ur-Bororo saying.
Medical Catastrophe
> Zoogz Rift wrote:
> >
> > What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
> > GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
> > are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
> > concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
> > interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
> > embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
> > music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> > it...
> >
> > It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
> > (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
> > and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
> > confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
> > other people's slants on the subject.
> >
> > Let it rip, daddy-o.
>
> I did, just a few seconds ago. It was amazingly musical too.
I once farted "The Rite of Spring". And lit it. Lost the deposit on that
fucking house, I tell you.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------->
|\__/,| (`\ M E D I C A L C A T A S T R O P H E
meow. _.|o o |_ ) ) S29 T253 KAGR B#99awd5410hk820
-------(((-mr(((------------------------------------------------>
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
Hull) wrote:
> Goddam, Zoogz still can rant! Take this, you spineless bastard <sound of
> folding chair striking cerebrum of pathetic cretin>! Hoo-hah, what's for
> lunch?
Yes, that was a great post! It's good to see him happy/pissed off (I
think, in Zoogz's case, those are interchangeable or inextricably linked
emotions) again.
-Sam
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
lol---Where would modern society be without the metal folding chair?
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>In article <37126720.3308433@news-server>, ZZZg...@stny.lrun.com (Jerry
>Hull) wrote:
>
>> Goddam, Zoogz still can rant! Take this, you spineless bastard <sound of
>> folding chair striking cerebrum of pathetic cretin>! Hoo-hah, what's for
>> lunch?
>
>Yes, that was a great post! It's good to see him happy/pissed off (I
>think, in Zoogz's case, those are interchangeable or inextricably linked
>emotions) again.
Since I'm not one of these Sam/Karen deals, I have to be happy and sad
simultaneously! lol
Kind of like that old episode of SUPERMAN where he splits himself into
two Supermen, each with only half the strength of the whole kit 'n'
kaboodle. If I could do that, then both Zoogz' would be the ideal
weight, so I'd actually be healthier. Something to think about.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say, regarding music.
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
medicalc--LICK-...@hotmail.com (Medical Catastrophe)
wrote:
>Amenhotep IV <ikhn...@amarna.gov.aeg> wrote:
>
>> Zoogz Rift wrote:
>> >
>> > What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
>> > GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
>> > are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
>> > concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
>> > interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
>> > embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
>> > music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
>> > it...
>> >
>> > It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
>> > (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
>> > and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
>> > confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
>> > other people's slants on the subject.
>> >
>> > Let it rip, daddy-o.
>>
>> I did, just a few seconds ago. It was amazingly musical too.
>
>I once farted "The Rite of Spring". And lit it. Lost the deposit on that
>fucking house, I tell you.
It's a fact that real estate people just don't like Stravinsky.
msouthg
Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>What actually comprises music?
Some people might like to hear the sounds that the following would
produce:
Your up to the minute undercurrents alternative news
http://www.undercurrents.org recieved this news flash today !
BOMBS AWAY !
White House--President Clinton announced today an all out bombing
offensive
against England will begin in two weeks, unless a peace accord is
ratified
by England and its break-away province of Northern Ireland.
"Using the fine logic we crafted in the Kosovo intervention, we have
decided to add, incrementally, to the list of peace initiatives around the
world," he said in a prepared statement.
A background briefing indicated that on a weekly schedule, the
Clinton administration would intervene in the following areas:
Week one -- Bombing of England to free Northern Ireland
Week two -- Bombing of Ankara, Baghdad and Teheran to free the
Kurds.
Week three -- Bombing of several random African countries to stop the
Hutus
from killing Tutsis.
Week four -- Bombing of both Istanbul and Athens to solve the Cyprus
problem
Week five -- Bombing of Madrid to free the Basque Country.
Week six --Bombing of Ottawa to free the Québécois
Week seven --Bombing of Jakarta to free the Timor Islands.
Week eight --Bombing of New Delhi to free the Tamil peoples of Sri
Lanka
Week nine -- Bombing of Paris to free Corsica
Week ten --Bombing of Washington, D.C. to free the Confederate of
Southern
States, held captive for 139 years.
"This schedule will do until we can come up with others," said Madeline
Albright, Secretary of State.
She did not respond when asked when the bombing of Beijing, in order
to free
Tibet, would occur.
ends
====================================================
===========
UNDERCURRENTS
training***alternative news video***archive
16b Cherwell Street, Oxford, OX4 1BG, England
Tel: +44 (0)1865 203 661 Production / training 662 Distribution 663
Archive
<http://WWW.UNDERCURRENTS.ORG>
Undercurrents 10 is OUT NOW !
====================================================
===========
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
Freen) wrote:
> Sort of, only if the intention is communicated in the sound itself.
> i.e. Speech is sound with intention, but the intention is communicated
> by the words said, not the sound they make.
Then you have artists like James Joyce and (partially) Harry Partch, and
even those distinctions become blurred.
This could easily become the never-ending thread.
Neheb-ka-f
>
> Amenhotep IV <ikhn...@amarna.gov.aeg> wrote:
>
> > Zoogz Rift wrote:
> > >
> > > What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
> > > GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
> > > are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
> > > concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
> > > interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
> > > embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
> > > music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> > > it...
> > >
> > > It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
> > > (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
> > > and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
> > > confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
> > > other people's slants on the subject.
> > >
> > > Let it rip, daddy-o.
> >
> > I did, just a few seconds ago. It was amazingly musical too.
>
> I once farted "The Rite of Spring". And lit it. Lost the deposit on that
> fucking house, I tell you.
I farted "Afternoon Delight" and saved it in a plastic bag. For a small
fee I will be happy to unleash it in a newsgroup of your choice.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
forming a consensually agreed-upon frame, while eyes lock and tongues
entwine to build a shared sculpture upon the sands of time out of a molten
alloy of - say - tin and zinc, or maybe iron forged with a sulfur/boron
coke.
Or maybe not.
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
>msouthg <Mi...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>yes, even
>people who are completely deaf can enjoy and perform music
As proven 24 hours a day on MTV. Ha ha.
Ogden Freen
Music is any non verbal sonic communication that someone, anyone,
decides to call "music".
Beyond that it's all just a matter of taste......
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
<sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo> wrote:
>> What actually comprises music?
>
>Music is sound with intention. That's it.
Sort of, only if the intention is communicated in the sound itself.
i.e. Speech is sound with intention, but the intention is communicated
by the words said, not the sound they make.
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
wrote:
>Patrick Neve <sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>> Music is sound with intention. That's it.
>
>much better than my attempt of a definition. do you think your staement
>would also apply if it's "only" the listeners who intend to perceive a
>sound as music?
As with all art, the moment of communication is the moment of
perception.
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Geir Corneliussen
>
> On 12 Apr 1999 11:29:41 -0400, "scott hand" <vida...@qx.doh!.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 6:41 PM, Zoogz Rift <mailto:The Liquid Moamo> wrote:
> >>music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> >>it...
> >
>
> I agree. Which brings us to the loaded question: WHAT DOES IT TAKE
> TO MAKE MUSIC "INTERESTING?" (see my other post for my personal views
> on that answer)
For me, in order to make it interesting, I enjoy to pick apart all the
lame cliches.
All those lame pre-recorded patches, all those "standards" and "rules",
makes me want to fuck it.
The cliches are, however, the building-stones in arranging music. They
are also the "language". The intellectual and creative part of the work,
is to make it interesting. Some prefer to lick the rules up the ass, but
I am not one of them. By twisting this basic language, some good stuff
can be made. Even a lame old lovesong and a two-chord riff thing can be
interesting enough if it's getting fucked by a potent composer. If it
then is balanced and have a recognizable idea behinfd it, something that
makes you see inner landscapes and makes you feel good, then it is good.
Many things can be defined as good, those thoughts was just what was in
this guys head right now. After all, really good music should not be
over-explained. It's what makes me STOP thinking, and drags me in.
Sometimes my legs move, sometimes not. Sometimes my mind says: Turn it
down! Too much of a good thing is not good. So it should be balanced.
Some nasty stuff and some virginity. Like making a tasty meal, salt is
good, but then add some sugar. Many spices create a balanced mix of
culinaric experiences. This said, even a plain ricepudding is sometimes
okay. But not every day. Nay. So a little bit of everything, on a nice
plate, is my deal.
Geir Corneliussen
Friendly Little Finger
http://home.sol.no/~corn/zappa.htm
Ogden Freen
wrote:
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>> Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Zoogz Rift wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What actually comprises music?
>> >
>> >Organized sound.
>>
>> So, you include speech within music?
>
>Sure, why not? The differentiation between speech and singing is rather
>arbitrary -- speech has pitch and rhythm, just like singing.
Yes, but the main communication in speech lies in the actual words
said, not the sound they make.
While you are free to chose whether you listen to someone's speech as
music, you will probably be missing out on the message that the
speaker is attempting to communicate.
The difference between speech and singing is that communication in
singing is CONCIOUSLY placed in both the words themselves, as well as
the pitch and rythm. But yes, the line of distinction does get blurry
here, if not the point of making the distinction arbitrary.
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
<sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Greg Carson wrote:
>> Well I hate to sound real simple about it, but if you enjoy the sound
>> waves that goes into your ears, it is music.
>
>No way, and for two reasons.
>One, that's the critical argument, that the interpretation overrides the
>artistic intent, which is bullshit. Just because you don't like it
>doesn't mean it's not music.
>Two, the beautiful sound of chirping birds is not music. It's just birds
>trying to get laid.
Yes, it is music. It's birds using music to try to get laid (among
other things).
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
<cto...@ixlmemphis.com> wrote:
> As long as you define the framed thing you've created as music, it
>doesn't matter what anyone else thinks; it's music.
Umm... only if you've decided to invent an entirely new language.
The frame thing works for art (as in ALL forms of art), but music is a
specific type of art pertaining to sound.
If you call something that doesn't make a sound "music" you're just
stealing a word from the English language and inventing a new meaning
for it.
Colours aren't music, unless you've gotten hold of some good LSD.
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
<The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>Defining music or ART is impossible,
<snip>
Not really. the nature of art lies in the intent and/or the
perception. We should note that the word "art" originally comes from
the latin "artifice", which is also the root word for "artificial".
>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
>Any works, devoid of these two essential ingredients, is fraudulent
>crap intended to con or manipulate me, and I refuse to fall for it
Intellect and effort? What about SOUL? What about EYEBROWS?
Blues musicians made some of the most powerful music I've ever heard,
but I'm not sure it's because of the intellect or effort that's gone
into it.
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:12:01 GMT, moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift
><The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>
>>Defining music or ART is impossible,
><snip>
>Not really. the nature of art lies in the intent and/or the
>perception. We should note that the word "art" originally comes from
>the latin "artifice", which is also the root word for "artificial".
>
>>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
>>Any works, devoid of these two essential ingredients, is fraudulent
>>crap intended to con or manipulate me, and I refuse to fall for it
>
>Intellect and effort? What about SOUL? What about EYEBROWS?
>Blues musicians made some of the most powerful music I've ever heard,
>but I'm not sure it's because of the intellect or effort that's gone
>into it.
Eyebrows? Uh, well, um...
SOUL *IS* EFFORT.
As for blues--and a lot of people are going to dislike this--if Robert
Johnson is "some of the most powerful music" you've ever heard, all I
can suggest is that you're not listening to the right music. Blues
has it's place, but "powerful?" I like lots of blues, but I don't
agree with you here. Blues is mostly plain, simple, redundant,
derivitive. I find Robert Johnson to be downright boring.
Lightning Slim is a different story. He's my favorite.
thunderjack
Hello, Mr. Freen,
The whole point of my post was that if an individual has the intellectual
capacity to call a thing music, then, to that individual, the thing IS music.
Inventing an "entirely new language" has nothing to do with it unless the
individual is interested in selling another sentient being on the newly
created "music".
And, by the way, anyone who gets hold of some good LSD and ingests it is
living within a psycoactive framework uniquely distinct from that of anyone
not indulging in a similar biochemically altered state. The music supplied by
the environmental pigmentation is still musical to the tripper regardless of
the inablility of unimpaired guests to hear it.
The conceptual framework imposed by the individual upon the surrounding
environment is all that is necessary to create any work of art, including
music.
When you wrote that "music is a specific type of art pertaining to sound", you
imposed a definition accepted by more than one person upon the theoretical
individual I had concocted to express the view that music can be whatever an
individual imagines, regardless of generally accepted ideas.
As to your statement that "The frame thing works for art (as in ALL forms of
art)", I'd like to point out that to couch a melody in any type of harmonic or
rhythmic environment is to "frame" that melody. In fact, if you record an
eructation on magnetic tape, the tape becomes a frame and the eructation can
become music, should anyone presume to identify it as such.
I respect your point of view and agree with it in a general sense but think
you missed the gist of my idea.
Wishing you well,
-thunderjack-
Oct. 31 = Dec. 25
http://members.tripod.com/~Thunderjack/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
scott hand
>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
Despite my rather idiosyncratic views on music and art, I agree with almost
everything Zoogz wrote. Surprising, really.
>Garage bands making feedback may
>be making "music" in a sense, but it certainly isn't GOOD music. No
>intellect, no effort.
Some of these examples I don't agree with. I appreciate people doing
whatever they can as long as they are trying. Some garage bands playing
feedback are really stretching, that's cool. Ok, the term "garage band" set
me off because I'm a fan of 60's garage/trash rock- all these
not-too-bright teenagers trying to find a way to get laid and then they
stumble on some acid and blammo, they're off exploring the boundaries of
their little teenage universes from angles completely new to them. Sure, it
might be moronic, but it's really something to them.
<snip>
> or mere "impulse" art/music
>(jerkoff improvisations done by musicians too lazy to work to create
>something more substantial);
Again. Isn't improv just another method? Is it really terrible for someone
to avoid repetition and, instead, challenge their intellect by always
demanding something new, to always be creative and never on "cruise
control"?
<snip>
>In the rehearsal studio where my band is currently rehearsing, there
>are something like 8 band rooms. Whenever we take a break, and sit
>there and listen to all the bands in the other rooms, I recently
>noticed that THEY'RE ALL ESSENTIALLY PLAYING THE SAME SONG! And it's
>not even a particularly good song at that! Is this GOOD?
To loop back to the garage band thing, how about that Sonic Youth record
where they just recorded a bunch of noise in their rehearsal space that was
made to annoy the crappy band upstairs? Something about a crappy metal band
annoying them so they just turned the amps up way loud with their
instruments on them and let it go, made a record of it. That's art, but it
didn't take much effort and I wouldn't want to hear it too often.
However, beyond the concern of these points, I agree entirely.
scott
scott hand
>>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
>>crap intended to con or manipulate me, and I refuse to fall for it
>
>Intellect and effort? What about SOUL? What about EYEBROWS?
>Blues musicians made some of the most powerful music I've ever heard,
>but I'm not sure it's because of the intellect or effort that's gone
>into it.
>
It is exactly because of the intellect and effort that's gone into it.
scott
scott hand
<mailto:ro...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <3712a03f...@NEWS.REMARQ.COM>, nos...@freen.to (Ogden
>Freen) wrote:
>
>> Sort of, only if the intention is communicated in the sound itself.
>> i.e. Speech is sound with intention, but the intention is communicated
>
>Then you have artists like James Joyce and (partially) Harry Partch, and
>even those distinctions become blurred.
>
>This could easily become the never-ending thread.
>
>-Sam
>
Here it goes...
scott
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 5:12 PM, Zoogz Rift <mailto:The Liquid Moamo> wrote:
>> or mere "impulse" art/music
>>(jerkoff improvisations done by musicians too lazy to work to create
>>something more substantial);
>
>Again. Isn't improv just another method? Is it really terrible for someone
>to avoid repetition and, instead, challenge their intellect by always
>demanding something new, to always be creative and never on "cruise
>control"?
If that's what they're doing by improvising, I'm with you. But is
that what most musicians do when they improvise?
Improvisation is something that the musician must EARN. Improvisation
is masturbation, plain and simple. If a musician expects me to sit
there and listen to him/her jerk off, that's all well and
good--IF--they've already given me something of substance to prove to
me that IMPROV isn't all they're capable of. Give me a half hour of
good, tight, intelligent, complex music---THEN you've earned the right
to jerk off on me with improv for a few minutes. Here's a good
scientific ratio to go by:
30 minutes of WORK earns one 5 minutes of play.
Or something like that.
I enjoy some music by Miles Davis, John McLaughlin, Chick Corea, etc.,
but I really have a low tolerance for BITCHES BREW. And THESE guys
are EXPERTS. Think of all the rank amateurs out there who think their
bullshit is REALLY COOL AND GROOVY, and SURELY EVERYBODY WILL SWALLOW
THE JIZZ...
If the spitball scalped the baby, that's wonderful, but first I want
to experience My Human Gets Me Blues, Sun Zoom Spark, Bat Chain
Puller, etc. And after one Inca Roads, Zomby Woofs, Black Pages,
etc. after another, FZ can play The Torture Never Stops as much as he
damn well pleases. You can kind of judge when you stand back and
examine the entire career of any particular musical artist--was it all
bullshit? or were they on the level?
p.s. I hate Phillip Glass. I'd appreciate it if none of you would
ever mention his name again, in this or any other place or lifetime.
Thanks.
Martin Gregorie
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:37:09 -0400, Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Zoogz Rift wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> What actually comprises music?
>>> >
>>> >Organized sound.
>>>
>>> So, you include speech within music?
>>
>>Sure, why not? The differentiation between speech and singing is rather
>>arbitrary -- speech has pitch and rhythm, just like singing.
>
>Yes, but the main communication in speech lies in the actual words
>said, not the sound they make.
>While you are free to chose whether you listen to someone's speech as
>music, you will probably be missing out on the message that the
>speaker is attempting to communicate.
>The difference between speech and singing is that communication in
>singing is CONCIOUSLY placed in both the words themselves, as well as
>the pitch and rythm. But yes, the line of distinction does get blurry
>here, if not the point of making the distinction arbitrary.
>
Well put - that's what I'd have said if I could of wrote it that well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
gregorie |+44 (0171) 637 9111
@ |
logica |
. |All opinions expressed are solely those
com |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:37:55 +0200, fb_illu...@csi.com (frank)
>wrote:
>
>>msouthg <Mi...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>yes, even
>>people who are completely deaf can enjoy and perform music
>
>
>As proven 24 hours a day on MTV. Ha ha.
>
..but check out Evenyn Glennie, a Scottish percussionist who's also
profoundly deaf.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
This seems similar to my current line of thinking re the dichotomy between
the creative impulse and the process of creation. I think all art is kinda
like dining on pate de foie gras with baked brie and croissants, or
Twinkies, then smearing the shit on a canvas. We try to do it as artfully
as possible, but the alimentary canal slows down the process and that
damned colon just gets in the way.
> p.s. I hate Phillip Glass. I'd appreciate it if none of you would
> ever mention his name again, in this or any other place or lifetime.
> Thanks.
Who?
msouthg
Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>SOUL *IS* EFFORT.
>
>As for blues--and a lot of people are going to dislike this--if Robert
>Johnson is "some of the most powerful music" you've ever heard, all I
>can suggest is that you're not listening to the right music. Blues
>has it's place, but "powerful?" I like lots of blues, but I don't
>agree with you here. Blues is mostly plain, simple, redundant,
>derivitive. I find Robert Johnson to be downright boring.
>
>Lightning Slim is a different story. He's my favorite.
I think you are being subjective here, which is probably part of the
answer to your original question.
I think there is/can be "powerful" blues. My first thoughts was of the field
hollers (recorded by Sam Charters? Alan Lomax? Library of Congress?),
then Leadbelly (sung his way out of a prison sentence for murder, so the
story goes) and then got to Woody Guthrie, whose voice maybe
reflected the Huntingdon's Chorea (sp?) which finally did for him.
And yes, I do disagree with you about Robert Johnson.
Cheers, Zoogz.
msouthg
<vida...@qx.doh!.net> writes
>To loop back to the garage band thing, how about that Sonic Youth record
>where they just recorded a bunch of noise in their rehearsal space that was
>made to annoy the crappy band upstairs?
Having bought it, I really don't know if I can call Lou Reed's "Metal
Machine Music" music. Although, obviously he does :-)
bgwaters
"Music is just black ants crawling across white paper." Don van Vliet
(Do I win 5 pounds?)
Benjamin Horrendous
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
><<Having bought it, I really don't know if I can call Lou Reed's "Metal
>Machine Music" music. Although, obviously he does :-)
>-- >>
>
>only jokingly, im sure. it was a big joke after all. he is too, sometimes;)
>
>Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip
>Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass?Who is
>Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass?
>Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip
>Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Who is Philip Glass? Hes no
>Steve Reich : )
Exactly! AGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
My Mind) wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 5:12 PM, Zoogz Rift <mailto:The Liquid Moamo> wrote:
>
>>>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>>>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>>>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
>
>Instead of asking the newsgroup the definition of art, according to
>them, maybe you should ask a nutritionist how to eat, a trainer how
>to exercise, and a counsellor how to find a job.
>
>You're not fooling anyone with those rants.
>
>They only make increasingly clear your lameness.
>
>If you got a dime for every moment you ranted and wasted people's
>time - and did what everyone else does: exerting work and not
>pretending to be a quote unquote artist - you'd be a rich man
>indeed.
>
>Some will refuse to learn the facts of life.......
>
>
It took you a whole week to think that up? You're losing your touch!
Michael P. Lockwood
: Patrick Neve <sp...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
: >On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Greg Carson wrote:
: >> Well I hate to sound real simple about it, but if you enjoy the sound
: >> waves that goes into your ears, it is music.
: >No way, and for two reasons.
: >One, that's the critical argument, that the interpretation overrides the
: >artistic intent, which is bullshit. Just because you don't like it
: >doesn't mean it's not music.
: >Two, the beautiful sound of chirping birds is not music. It's just birds
: >trying to get laid.
: reminds me of guitar solos.
Good point. Most of the music on the radio is just men trying to get laid.
Ogden Freen
<The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:11:43 GMT, nos...@freen.to (Ogden Freen) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:12:01 GMT, moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift
>><The Liquid Moamo>) wrote:
>>>When people ask me how I determine what's GOOD music, or GOOD art, I
>>>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>>>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
>>>Any works, devoid of these two essential ingredients, is fraudulent
>>>crap intended to con or manipulate me, and I refuse to fall for it
>>
>>Intellect and effort? What about SOUL? What about EYEBROWS?
>>Blues musicians made some of the most powerful music I've ever heard,
>>but I'm not sure it's because of the intellect or effort that's gone
>>into it.
>
>Eyebrows? Uh, well, um...
>
>SOUL *IS* EFFORT.
Dunno about that one...
I've heard a lot of music which people have put a lot of effort into,
but has no soul whatsoever.
I suppose you could call soul emotional effort, but I don't think
that's all there is to it.
>As for blues--and a lot of people are going to dislike this--if Robert
>Johnson is "some of the most powerful music" you've ever heard, all I
>can suggest is that you're not listening to the right music. Blues
>has it's place, but "powerful?" I like lots of blues, but I don't
>agree with you here. Blues is mostly plain, simple, redundant,
>derivitive. I find Robert Johnson to be downright boring.
Well, I like Robert Johnson. I like his stuff a lot. I'm one of the
few who says he likes Johnson... and actually means it.
But what I wasn't talking about Robert Johnson in particular.
>Lightning Slim is a different story. He's my favorite.
Do you like him cause of his intellect, or cause of his effort?
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Ogden Freen
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
LOL!!! Oh, all right--you got me!
Damn! :P
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
>what a decent conversation! It is surprising these days.
>
>My brother in law says all music is
>mathematical, to me that means some music just does not add up.
It does if you say, "Hold it, hold it, hold it!"
lol--never mind.
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
>>>mathematical, to me that means some music just does not add up.
>>
>>
>>It does if you say, "Hold it, hold it, hold it!"
>>
>>lol--never mind.
>>
>>
>
>hmmm, just being nasty i guess. go ahead. It is easy to do, and you seem like
>a simple person.
>
>i was looking for decent feedback, whatever, pal.
Oh, stop your crying--it wasn't directed at you--I was referring to
something in one of my more popular songs. Jeesssh.
Mark
wrote:
>Having bought it, I really don't know if I can call Lou Reed's "Metal
>Machine Music" music. Although, obviously he does :-)
He only did that to void his contract with RCA. They said he owed
them an album, he said "fine, I'll make you a double album and you let
me go, right?" They agreed. Lou set his guitar up on a stand next to
an amplifier, turned the amp all the way up, and recorded the
resulting sounds and bounced it all on multiple tracks. He then
handed this over to RCA and said there ya go... I don't think Lou
thinks of MMM as "music"...
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
I hope he does, because it's better than all the rest of the crap he's
put out.
msouthg
<kyno...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:05:44 +0100, msouthg <Mi...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Having bought it, I really don't know if I can call Lou Reed's "Metal
>>Machine Music" music. Although, obviously he does :-)
>
>He only did that to void his contract with RCA. They said he owed
>them an album, he said "fine, I'll make you a double album and you let
>me go, right?" They agreed. Lou set his guitar up on a stand next to
>an amplifier, turned the amp all the way up, and recorded the
>resulting sounds and bounced it all on multiple tracks. He then
>handed this over to RCA and said there ya go... I don't think Lou
>thinks of MMM as "music"...
>
is in the name.
I am grateful for the background info on MMM, of which I was unaware.
Now for the dilemma: I have enjoyed listening to it occasionally (I've
always been a bit strange). Should this new knowledge affect my
enjoyment?
Zoogz has been saying he likes ELP "Tarkus".
I believe they had a similar contract situation and cobbled together "Love
Beach", which I also like.
"I'll get me coat ....."
>
>
Regards from the article-bot :-)
Michael P. Lockwood
: > 30 minutes of WORK earns one 5 minutes of play.
: >
Perhaps the numbers are right, but I think the 30 minutes should be spent
practicing your improvisations. For every 30 minutes of practice, you can
pull off 5 minutes of interesting improvisation. And I'm in a noise band
and I'm saying this!
-Michael
Michael H.
For most people, for every 30 minutes of improvisation, you can pull
off 5 minutes of stuff that anybody else would want to hear. Today, even
jazz players edit, cut and paste their solos together from a number of
takes. So when people mock the early recordings and some of the 60s
music, they should remember that most of it was done live in the studio
on 4 or 8 tracks, with the occasional flubbed note corrected by
"punching in." None of this digital audio manipulation, quantizing,
pitch-correcting and all of that.
Michael H.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> I want to go on record (again) and say that I think "punching" SUCKS,
> and any musician who has to resort to more than one or two punches on
> any given album project should be punched in the FACE! If you're not
> good enough or prepared enough to record your damn parts, you have no
> business wasting everybody's time in the studio. I mean, let's call a
> spade a spade here--PUNCHING IS DISHONEST. And I hate dishonest
> music. I'd MUCH rather hear the mistakes, the real thing. Mistakes
> are far more interesting to me than some sanitized horse manure that
> tries to say "Look how great I am!" instead of saying "Let's give this
> and that a shot." I like troopers, not musical cowards.
Well, there's punching and then there's PUNCHING (don't ask me what that
means). Being a rank amateur that requires lots of punching just to string
two notes together in a semi-coherent fashion, I think it's GREAT!
> I find it much more exciting to hear ELP's live 3-lp set version of
> Karn Evil 9 than to listen to the earlier studio version on Brain
> Salad Surgery. The live one is uneven, sometimes unsure, and has
> numerous mistakes (mostly by Carl Palmer--sorry, Carl), but it's a
> thrilling recording by what used to be an extraordinary band.
You have a point there, but then I couldn't pick the drumsticks out of
Carl's ass (in any rhythmic way) to save mine. I think I'll stick with the
punching & seizing module for now.
> Then again, who gives a shit what *I* think, anyway? lol
Depends - you have any fingers left for Dr. John?
Ogden Freen
<thund...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Hello, Mr. Freen,
<snip>
>I respect your point of view and agree with it in a general sense but think
>you missed the gist of my idea.
fair enough........
_______________________________________________
www.freen.to
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
Lockwood) wrote:
>: >
>: > 30 minutes of WORK earns one 5 minutes of play.
>: >
>
>
>Perhaps the numbers are right, but I think the 30 minutes should be spent
>practicing your improvisations. For every 30 minutes of practice, you can
>pull off 5 minutes of interesting improvisation. And I'm in a noise band
>and I'm saying this!
>
>-Michael
Well, I felt a little hypocritical making that statement, because the
new album I'm working on will be about 50% difficult structured
material, and 50% improvisation (however, my improvs are actually
structured in the way you've just described--the band REHEARSES it's
chaos and spontanaiety!) :P
I have nothing against improvisation, as long as it's interesting, and
doesn't meander for too long. It should be like travelling on a
desolate dirt road in the middle of the night, and you just don't know
what's up ahead until you get there. If ghosts and goblins pop out
along the trip, you've got a winner. If they don't--then I think it
wise to stick to the more structured music.
0vercooked
wrote:
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>> Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Zoogz Rift wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What actually comprises music?
>> >
>> >Organized sound.
>>
>> So, you include speech within music?
>
>Sure, why not? The differentiation between speech and singing is rather
>arbitrary -- speech has pitch and rhythm, just like singing.
Actually, there must be some fundamental difference because we process
singing in a different part of our brain than speech. There are
people who (that) cannot understand words unless you sing to them and
versy visa.
Really!
-- -- - -0vercooked
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
>Michael P. Lockwood wrote:
>>
>> : >
>> : > 30 minutes of WORK earns one 5 minutes of play.
>> : >
>>
>> Perhaps the numbers are right, but I think the 30 minutes should be spent
>> practicing your improvisations. For every 30 minutes of practice, you can
>> pull off 5 minutes of interesting improvisation. And I'm in a noise band
>> and I'm saying this!
>
> For most people, for every 30 minutes of improvisation, you can pull
>off 5 minutes of stuff that anybody else would want to hear. Today, even
>jazz players edit, cut and paste their solos together from a number of
>takes.
I want to go on record (again) and say that I think "punching" SUCKS,
and any musician who has to resort to more than one or two punches on
any given album project should be punched in the FACE! If you're not
good enough or prepared enough to record your damn parts, you have no
business wasting everybody's time in the studio. I mean, let's call a
spade a spade here--PUNCHING IS DISHONEST. And I hate dishonest
music. I'd MUCH rather hear the mistakes, the real thing. Mistakes
are far more interesting to me than some sanitized horse manure that
tries to say "Look how great I am!" instead of saying "Let's give this
and that a shot." I like troopers, not musical cowards.
I find it much more exciting to hear ELP's live 3-lp set version of
Karn Evil 9 than to listen to the earlier studio version on Brain
Salad Surgery. The live one is uneven, sometimes unsure, and has
numerous mistakes (mostly by Carl Palmer--sorry, Carl), but it's a
thrilling recording by what used to be an extraordinary band.
Then again, who gives a shit what *I* think, anyway? lol
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
Karen Rouse) wrote:
> you have any fingers left for Dr. John?
He wouldn't be wise to use them--he doesn't know where they've been.
creosote
>
> What actually comprises music? What are the essential elements of
> GOOD music? There are 12 tones, then all the in-between shit. There
> are melodies, harmonies, rhythms, polyrhythms, etc. Then there is the
> concept of orchestration and arrangement. Then, methods of
> interpretation and performance. Recording techniques, enhancements,
> embellishments. All of the above, and much, much more. How does
> music go around in your head, and what kind of value do you place on
> it...
>
> It'd be (somewhat) interesting to read what the more intelligent of us
> (ha ha) actually think about all of this, philosophically, creatively
> and scientifically. I think about music quite a bit (in fact, I'd
> confess, to a point of obsession), and it's always curious to learn
> other people's slants on the subject.
>
> Let it rip, daddy-o.
*********
BIG QUESTION: here's 2 short and vaguely profound answers.
1. Music is poetry without words. (so what's poetry then?)
2. Music is whatever improves on silence. Contrary to popular belief,
silence is neither necessarily golden nor perfect . . .
creosote
Zoogz Rift <The Liquid Moamo>
wrote:
What about MORE silence--silence in the other direction? Some silence
is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos. Silence can be a cool
thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> What about MORE silence--silence in the other direction? Some silence
> is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
> living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
> hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos. Silence can be a cool
> thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
Yeah, but you probably heard birds, the breeze in the trees*, the Rogue
river (or whatever water was nearest), other stuff like that. Even if you
go into a sound isolation chamber, you end up hearing your heartbeat, the
blood coursing thru the veins nearest the inner ear, random air molecules
colliding with your eardrum, and then your Timex digital beeps the hour and
sends your head thru the roof.
So, yeah, it's all music.
(If anyone needs some kind of stamp of authenticity or frame around it,
there's a track called "2 Minutes of Silence" on a Lennon/Ono album, and
the "Meditation" track at the beginning of Santana's Lotus. John Cage is
sort of a given.)
-Sam
* poetry
msouthg
MO...@netdirect.net> writes
>Actually, there must be some fundamental difference because we process
>singing in a different part of our brain than speech. There are
>people who (that) cannot understand words unless you sing to them and
>versy visa.
>Really!
And I think stammerers are encouraged to adopt some characteristics of
singing to mitigate their difficulties.
msouthg
Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>Then again, who gives a shit what *I* think, anyway? lol
I'm working up to it :-)
Regards from The Great Procrastinator.
msouthg
Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>What about MORE silence--silence in the other direction?
Like in an anechoic chamber?
Where all you here is you autonomic body functions (and the occasional
fart?).
> Some silence
>is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
>living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
>hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos.
No birds? Boy, you Merkans are really fucking up the environment :-)
> Silence can be a cool
>thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
--
Geir Corneliussen
> >*********
> >
> >BIG QUESTION: here's 2 short and vaguely profound answers.
> >
> >1. Music is poetry without words. (so what's poetry then?)
> >2. Music is whatever improves on silence. Contrary to popular belief,
> >silence is neither necessarily golden nor perfect . . .
>
> What about MORE silence--silence in the other direction? Some silence
> is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
> living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
> hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos. Silence can be a cool
> thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
There aint no such a thing as silence. In a closed room, you will hear
your own body functions like farting, breathing and even if you don't
have any gas and you shut up you will still hear the sound of your heart
honeycup, it will go bomp bomp. And his too can be music. There is also
the sounds that nobody but you can hear. Not in your imagination, but
cause by damaged hairs in the snailhouse. Those hairs are carriers of
soundvawes from the outer world in wich we live. The inner world is the
bull under your skull. What happens under your skull mister Bull, is
that those tiny hairs have been wrecked up by too many soundvawes at
once. They will react, and the signal will be rejected. The not so neat
result is called tinnitus. Some say they hear a frying pan, some an
airport. Can this be music? I highly doubt so. Back to the outer world,
a guy got a frying pan smashed into his skull for real. Boooing it said.
And it certainly wasen't all that musical to the poor sucker who was so
unlucky as to stand in its way. But this too can be music. For the
surroundings. For the fryingpancompany and for the hospital to where
they took him.
Geir Corneliussen
Friendly Little Finger Zappa Links
The ultimate resource for Zappa resources
http://home.sol.no/~corn/zappa.htm
Michael H.
called "Stuttering Blues." It ended with a line that went something
like: I can't get my words out like I want...de-sire-sire-sire to get'em
out, but I can get my lovin' like a want it.
I met John Lee Hooker briefly outside of the Colonial Tavern in
Toronto. It was before I saw Beefheart and the Magic Band there. Some
moron let off a tear gas bomb and everybody had to leave the Colonial,
including Hooker and his band. He had his guitar in the case and a mug
of beer, on the sidewalk, and he smiled and said to me something like,
"I got out with my guitar and my drink. That's the main thing." God, he
made me laugh. He didn't stutter at all at that time. He is actually my
favourite blues singer. And also my favourite guitarist ever. Hooker's
influence on Jimi Hendrix is too under-acknowledged. Machine Gun is pure
Hooker. It is idiotic to say that he only played in one or two keys,
because what he did in those one or two keys means more than all the
fusion guitarists in the world running up and down a zillion modal
scales. His phrasing dices and slices it. Throw away your fusion players
and your vegematics. Hooker had that beat. The kind of beat that could
mind the stars for a spell while the minder of stars goes for a
cigarette. That was something that came out at a live performance. It
wasn't a drum-machine monotony at all, but an incessant building of
tension and energy over a span of ten or fifteen minutes probably. The
constant movement to a higher level. Howlin' Wolf had that talent also.
The long building of excitement at a live performance that could never
be captured on record. Recordings may capture some dazzling
well-practiced lick, but they don't capture how the artist brings in new
levels of goosing the energy of the moment at the venue in question.
Michael H.
Michael P. Lockwood
: >
: >1. Music is poetry without words. (so what's poetry then?)
: >2. Music is whatever improves on silence. Contrary to popular belief,
: >silence is neither necessarily golden nor perfect . . .
: What about MORE silence--silence in the other direction? Some silence
: is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
: living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
: hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos. Silence can be a cool
: thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
As Royal Trux say,
"Silence is not the absence of noise, it's the balance of phase."
-Michael
Michael H.
>
> In article <37159852...@news.primenet.com>, Zoogz Rift <The
> Liquid Moamo> <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>
> Where all you here is you autonomic body functions (and the occasional
> fart?).
Carrying silence further than a complete lack of noise. There was a
spherical room in Bell Labs somewhere on the east coast that my father
went to, that had walls made of numerous sound-absorbing thin pyramids,
and the visitors walked out on a ramp to the centre of the sphere, and
he told me that it was so quiet he could hear the sound of the flow of
blood in his ears, and that that was the only sound he could hear. That
is quiet.
> > Some silence
> >is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
> >living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
> >hear NOTHING--no cars, no voices, no chaos.
>
> No birds? Boy, you Merkans are really fucking up the environment :-)
The Merkans share that infamy with the rest of us, but I think that in
this case it was either a desert or a deserted environment, i.e. not
that the songbirds had been annihilated, but that it was an environment
that was too barren for songbirds to begin with. Relating this back to
Captain Beefheart, he often spoke in interviews about crows and ravens,
and I think those birds visited the desert to some extent. He certainly
expressed an appreciation of their presence..."Ice Cream For Crow" seems
connected to that. I am not an ecological science person at all, so I
don't know, but it could be worth checking out. At the same time, I
think that all nations are rather pathetic re protecting the environment
and wildlife. Hell, human "civilization" treats nonhumans as photo-op
props, targets, food, garbage, vermin, or worse. It pains me deeply to
think about it.
> > Silence can be a cool
> >thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
>
I think that came up in the Meatball Fulton interview. Silence is
golden maybe? If scarcity of supply drives up the price, then a moment
of silence must be worth millions in this age of constant noise and
twaddle. I have found that to be true.
Michael H.
C. M. Sienko
>
> He only did that to void his contract with RCA. They said he owed
> them an album, he said "fine, I'll make you a double album and you let
> me go, right?" They agreed. Lou set his guitar up on a stand next to
> an amplifier, turned the amp all the way up, and recorded the
> resulting sounds and bounced it all on multiple tracks. He then
> handed this over to RCA and said there ya go... I don't think Lou
> thinks of MMM as "music"...
Okay, I've watched this thread with some amusement, but I gotta jump in
here. As someone who enjoys noise recordings, makes noise recordings,
etc., I know in my heart of hearts that you of the 200,000 different
ways you can put a guitar in front of an amplifier, none of them will
create the eight thousand orgasmic primeval butterlies whistling all the
national anthems of the world that is _Metal Machine Music_. When you
put a guitar in front of an amp, it goes "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAA"
and little else. Strapping on the phones and plopping MMM on the stereo
is a much richer experience than that.
I realize I just opened up a whole new can of worms by defending the
quality of a "noise" recording, but hey, why not. Before you say "*I*
could have made Metal Machine Music!", go try. set up your guitar on
your amp, record it, and send it to me. While the creation of a high
potency noise recording may not require the knowledge of the 43rd
inverted triad of the mixolydian scale, it does require an instinct that
I've experienced in precious few "musicians."
-c
--
Chris Sienko
"I like sanitised violence" - From the cover of the Wagstaff _Caught
Between the Victim & The Angel_ cassette
cmsi...@concentric.net
http://members.tripod.com/~cmsienkofoundation
Michael H.
>
> Zoogz Rift wrote:
>
> > >*********
> > >
> > >BIG QUESTION: here's 2 short and vaguely profound answers.
> > >
> > >1. Music is poetry without words. (so what's poetry then?)
> > >2. Music is whatever improves on silence. Contrary to popular belief,
> > >silence is neither necessarily golden nor perfect . . .
> >
> > is pleasant--I found that out when I lived in Oregon (as opposed to
> > living in Los Angeles all these years), and woke up in the morning to
> > thing, sometimes. Is silence music?
>
> your own body functions like farting, breathing and even if you don't
> have any gas and you shut up you will still hear the sound of your heart
> honeycup, it will go bomp bomp. And his too can be music. There is also
> the sounds that nobody but you can hear. Not in your imagination, but
> cause by damaged hairs in the snailhouse.
Nice description of the part of the ear that hears.
>Those hairs are carriers of
> soundvawes from the outer world in wich we live.
And those hairs are being nuked in the ears of every kid who is playing
a Walkman loud enough for you to hear it when sitting beside him/her on
the bus, let alone from the other side of the street. Twenty years from
now, portable walking-oriented cassette players will be sued like
tobacco companies for draining the health-care system because 75% of the
population will be deaf and will require hearing aids at a cost of
trillions of dollars to the taxpayer.
>The inner world is the
> bull under your skull. What happens under your skull mister Bull, is
> that those tiny hairs have been wrecked up by too many soundvawes at
> once. They will react, and the signal will be rejected. The not so neat
> result is called tinnitus. Some say they hear a frying pan, some an
> airport. Can this be music? I highly doubt so. Back to the outer world,
> a guy got a frying pan smashed into his skull for real. Boooing it said.
As in 707?
> And it certainly wasen't all that musical to the poor sucker who was so
> unlucky as to stand in its way. But this too can be music. For the
> surroundings. For the fryingpancompany and for the hospital to where
> they took him.
Tinnitus is child's play compared to the impending national ear
disaster because of portable cassette players that the more reckless
half of the population plays at ear-injuring levels. In a decade or two,
that half the population will be deaf, and if taxpayers refuse to fund
hearing aids, those deafened will have to learn to read to gain
information. By that time, nobody will know how to read, and the
neo-deafened will become the new intelligentsia, thanks to their
self-inflicted disability. But probably they won't bother to learn to
read, because it is easier to just remain totally uninformed and stupid.
Michael H.
Michael P. Lockwood
: On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:05:44 +0100, msouthg <Mi...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
: wrote:
: >Having bought it, I really don't know if I can call Lou Reed's "Metal
: >Machine Music" music. Although, obviously he does :-)
: He only did that to void his contract with RCA. They said he owed
: them an album, he said "fine, I'll make you a double album and you let
: me go, right?" They agreed. Lou set his guitar up on a stand next to
: an amplifier, turned the amp all the way up, and recorded the
: resulting sounds and bounced it all on multiple tracks. He then
: handed this over to RCA and said there ya go... I don't think Lou
: thinks of MMM as "music"...
I'll have to do some research, but I don't think there's any truth to
this. The liner notes to MMM state that it was recorded with strict stereo
separation, no overdubs, no panning. There is also a tremendous list of
the equipment used. A quick listen to it makes it clear that it's
processed feedback, probably coming through several speakers at once. It
sounds as though microphones and not guitar pickups were used to create
the feedback. It may even just be system feedback, the output cords
plugged into inputs. No distortion I don't think. Echo effects, delay and
such. A band I'm in did a cover of MMM Pt.4 as part of a Lou Reed night
concert, so I've listened to this carefully.
Now the story I've heard: Once Lou had recorded it, he felt it was his
magnum opus. He went into the RCA offices and played it for every person
he could until he found someone who agreed with him that it was brilliant.
RCA put it out, but recalled it almost immediately and issued an apology.
I'll find out which story is true and report back.
-Michael
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
Freen) wrote:
> Hopefully by then we will have learned from the chickens!
>
> .... in humans, "industrial deafness" - the degredation of hearing
> from exposure to too much high level sound, is irreversable. Once it's
> gone, there's no way it'll come back.
> ... whereas in chickens, it does return. In fact, a chicken can go
> completely deaf from exposure to loud noise, and within a week or so
> (I think) can have its hearing completely restored.
I don't know, but there's a good chance this is an avian trait as opposed
to a strictly chicken trait. Maybe that's what FZ was really referring to
when he applied the title to "Those Fucking Pigeons."
-Sam
scott hand
> Tinnitus is child's play compared to the impending national ear
>disaster because of portable cassette players that the more reckless
>half of the population plays at ear-injuring levels. In a decade or two,
>that half the population will be deaf, and if taxpayers refuse to fund
>hearing aids, those deafened will have to learn to read to gain
>information. By that time, nobody will know how to read, and the
>neo-deafened will become the new intelligentsia, thanks to their
>self-inflicted disability. But probably they won't bother to learn to
>read, because it is easier to just remain totally uninformed and stupid.
>
> Michael H.
>
And I, being half-deaf and half-literate, will rule the world!
scott
Michael H.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 1999 9:13 AM, Michael H. <mailto:zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> > Tinnitus is child's play compared to the impending national ear
> >disaster because of portable cassette players that the more reckless
> >half of the population plays at ear-injuring levels. In a decade or two,
> >that half the population will be deaf, and if taxpayers refuse to fund
> >hearing aids, those deafened will have to learn to read to gain
> >information. By that time, nobody will know how to read, and the
> >neo-deafened will become the new intelligentsia, thanks to their
> >self-inflicted disability. But probably they won't bother to learn to
> >read, because it is easier to just remain totally uninformed and stupid.
> >
>
> And I, being half-deaf and half-literate, will rule the world!
>
You must have played in a rock band too, eh?
Michael H.
Pedro Sena
>>tell them I base my evaluations on how much INTELLECT and EFFORT
>>(working hand in hand) I perceive to have gone into the specific work.
Deceiving perhaps, but acceptable to a degree. There is a lot of music that
is very intuitive, and it has nothing to do with effort to create or
intellect. it has to do with the depth of feeling the person has in their
vision to create such a music.
Perhaps this person really needs to spend some time listening to the show I
do on the web to get a better idea. One does not have to spend 30 days in
the studio to create something, any more than one can achieve in one day.
The results can be just as good. Jazz has proved this time and time again,
specially the likes of Miles Davis who hated being in the studio, whom he
once called a dirty whore.
Pedro Sena
>
>Improvisation is something that the musician must EARN. Improvisation
>is masturbation, plain and simple. If a musician expects me to sit
>there and listen to him/her jerk off, that's all well and
>good--IF--they've already given me something of substance to prove to
>me that IMPROV isn't all they're capable of. Give me a half hour of
>good, tight, intelligent, complex music---THEN you've earned the right
>to jerk off on me with improv for a few minutes. Here's a good
>scientific ratio to go by:
You must have never have heard pure improvisation, then. We need to take you
to India to hear some masters do their ragas for three, four, five hours on
end, and if you still call it "masturbation", you will have no dick to ever
use again.
You are mixing "ideas" with "feeling". Ideas, in of themselves are a form of
masturbation, mental masturbation, which is a terrible term for music. It's
more like "mastication" (as in camel). to me, what you are saying is that
you can hear the instruments, but not the music. There is a forest amidst
all these trees (instruments), and to say that one idea is better than
another is presumptuous and foolish. Actually it is a very well repeated
academic idea. I mean, professors have to justify their roles in society, I
guess. Please read Peter Michael Hamel's book on the subject.
Far Out Music and Foreign Film on the Web
http://www.pacifier.com/~shamen
Ygdrasil Journal of Poetic Arts
http://www.synapse.net/~kgerken
Pedro Sena
>
>Perhaps the numbers are right, but I think the 30 minutes should be spent
>practicing your improvisations. For every 30 minutes of practice, you can
>pull off 5 minutes of interesting improvisation. And I'm in a noise band
>and I'm saying this!
Or perhaps a philosopher should approach you and state "quality is inversely
proportional to quantity", and then you might discover that one does not
necessarily have to take 30 minutes to find their inner chord, unless they
are so thick that they need to find who they are first. All your lines
suggest is that one is still trying to find their expression with the
instrument they play. Don't worry. We all do that. But the gentleman's
suggestion is that everyone is crap, and can not live up to his standard as
to what music should be. Music is "self", not an idea, or anything else, and
the sooner we learn this, the better we will play and define our music, and
the less time we will waste "improvising". At that point it is not an
"improvisation" anyway, it is the mere expression of the components coming
together upon a theme, if there is one.
All of this discussion is like trying to invalidate the work that many
"improvisers" have done over the years, since the first man or woman that
ever played an instrument. To say that ANY, of their moments with the
instruments is a waste, means that particular player will rarely come to
grips with who he/she is, and will never accomplish much in the musical
world.
My concern with those kinds of opinions is that it limits the human
expression an the various musics that other cultures have to offer, and to
invalidate that is to deny us of our most precious avenue to the very soul
that creates these things.
Pedro Sena
>
>He only did that to void his contract with RCA. They said he owed
>them an album, he said "fine, I'll make you a double album and you let
>me go, right?" They agreed. Lou set his guitar up on a stand next to
>an amplifier, turned the amp all the way up, and recorded the
>resulting sounds and bounced it all on multiple tracks. He then
>handed this over to RCA and said there ya go... I don't think Lou
>thinks of MMM as "music"...
While the situation and "noise" served a purpose, Lou Reed is too smart and
talented a musician to realize that not a single moment can go by and he can
not learn from what he does. The difference shows in his work following,
that was much more precise and clear than before. The recordings were also
much more polished. Meaning that if anything, he realized that he now had
another addition to his music, that he could live with and work with, even
if he made noise. it's really not surprising. Fripp and Eno had just done
the same thing, although softer, and Ash Ra Tempel was doing it a lot as
well. Well, not that Stockhausen and Heinemann, didn't sound any better,
either.
Pedro Sena
>> There aint no such a thing as silence. In a closed room, you will hear
>> your own body functions like farting, breathing and even if you don't
>> have any gas and you shut up you will still hear the sound of your heart
>> honeycup, it will go bomp bomp. And his too can be music. There is also
>> the sounds that nobody but you can hear. Not in your imagination, but
>> cause by damaged hairs in the snailhouse.
>
> Nice description of the part of the ear that hears.
For that matter, the true "music of the spheres", which so few of us can
hear.