Dimensions, micro-tonal composition, and foreground compositions in general

Jake, overall, I agree with your premise regarding the balancing act
challenge facing any composer who chooses to write or record foreground music
(especially microtonal foreground music).

"...there has to be a balance between repetition and change... Many pieces felt
unrooted because they didn't seem to contain enough similarity along the way;
others had the opposite problem and felt repetitious".

I just listened to Dimension last night, however, and I actually thought that
the approach to short motifs employed in that piece actually "walked that fine
line" rather effectively.  First, they were repetitious enough for a "common
listener" to latch hold onto a meaningful pattern - even though specific
tones were outside of the "normal 12"... providing that steady foundation you
alluded when you mentioned KC's Belew era.  I cannot overstate the importance of
this accomplishment if one wishes to create something that most listeners can
understand or relate to. 

Please don't misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that all composers should strive
to create music which the populace can understand or relate to... Merely
that composers who do wish to do so will find that creating a recognizable
melodic personality is - if not crucial - at least one of the most effective
approaches to accomplishing it (IMO).

I also felt as though the ideas were in Dimension were riffed on and
around... "changed up" adequately to provide a sense of movement and variety. 
So I personally gave it very high grades for establishing recognizable melodic
content and then developing around it.

On the other hand, I was left wishing that the melodic statements could have
been a bit longer and more developed over the course of the piece. 

When it comes to music, I'm a largely self-taught, uneducated hack so I don't
claim to have any "authoritative" base from which to make such observations. 
They are all merely the opinions of a listener.
Mark Stephens
ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
http://www.progpositivity.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark, my observations were those of an interested layman, so we're in
the same situation there.

We agree on principles, and just not on precisely where to strike the
balance. That's all good, in my opinion. I'm very happy that
"Dimensions" worked for you. I'm sure the composer is, too. :)

It's also nice to see another King Crimson fan, of course. :)

Regards,
Jake

On 3/9/11, Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...> wrote:
> Jake, overall, I agree with your premise regarding the balancing act
> challenge facing any composer who chooses to write or record foreground
> music
> (especially microtonal foreground music).
>
> "...there has to be a balance between repetition and change... Many pieces
> felt
> unrooted because they didn't seem to contain enough similarity along the
> way;
> others had the opposite problem and felt repetitious".
>
> I just listened to Dimension last night, however, and I actually thought
> that
> the approach to short motifs employed in that piece actually "walked that
> fine
> line" rather effectively.  First, they were repetitious enough for a "common
> listener" to latch hold onto a meaningful pattern - even though specific
> tones were outside of the "normal 12"... providing that steady foundation
> you
> alluded when you mentioned KC's Belew era.  I cannot overstate the
> importance of
> this accomplishment if one wishes to create something that most listeners
> can
> understand or relate to.
>
>
> Please don't misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that all composers should
> strive
> to create music which the populace can understand or relate to... Merely
> that composers who do wish to do so will find that creating a recognizable
> melodic personality is - if not crucial - at least one of the most effective
> approaches to accomplishing it (IMO).
>
> I also felt as though the ideas were in Dimension were riffed on and
> around... "changed up" adequately to provide a sense of movement and
> variety.
> So I personally gave it very high grades for establishing recognizable
> melodic
> content and then developing around it.
>
> On the other hand, I was left wishing that the melodic statements could have
> been a bit longer and more developed over the course of the piece.
>
>
> When it comes to music, I'm a largely self-taught, uneducated hack so I
> don't
> claim to have any "authoritative" base from which to make such
> observations.
> They are all merely the opinions of a listener.
> Mark Stephens
> ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
> http://www.progpositivity.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Layman or not, you write perceptively and with clarity about music.

More importantly, I think the opinion of the non-professional musician, if
that's what you are, as you claim, is pertinent. Speaking for myself, I find
that I would rather write a piece that I felt had a deep craft that I
appreciated, yet spoke to the largest possible population. Like Mozart said:
"great music has something for the connoisseur and the commoner both".

In this regard I share Michael Sheiman's desire to reach a lot of people,
although I have maybe a broader definition of what that means, since my
focus is not on being about primarily focussed on pop/dance music, but
including art music and what many would describe as "contemporary classical"
or "neo-classical". But for me, this is broad enough to encompass what
Michael wants, too, provided that it has an "art music" bent.

It's exactly the opposite of Milton Babitt's attitude, when he penned "Who
cares if you listen?"

AKJ

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

> Mark, my observations were those of an interested layman, so we're in
> the same situation there.
>
> We agree on principles, and just not on precisely where to strike the
> balance. That's all good, in my opinion. I'm very happy that
> "Dimensions" worked for you. I'm sure the composer is, too. :)
>
> It's also nice to see another King Crimson fan, of course. :)
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> On 3/9/11, Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...> wrote:
> > Jake, overall, I agree with your premise regarding the balancing act
> > challenge facing any composer who chooses to write or record foreground
> > music
> > (especially microtonal foreground music).
> >
> > "...there has to be a balance between repetition and change... Many
> pieces
> > felt
> > unrooted because they didn't seem to contain enough similarity along the
> > way;
> > others had the opposite problem and felt repetitious".
> >
> > I just listened to Dimension last night, however, and I actually thought
> > that
> > the approach to short motifs employed in that piece actually "walked that
> > fine
> > line" rather effectively. First, they were repetitious enough for a
> "common
> > listener" to latch hold onto a meaningful pattern - even though specific
> > tones were outside of the "normal 12"... providing that steady foundation
> > you
> > alluded when you mentioned KC's Belew era. I cannot overstate the
> > importance of
> > this accomplishment if one wishes to create something that most listeners
> > can
> > understand or relate to.
> >
> >
> > Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that all composers should
> > strive
> > to create music which the populace can understand or relate to... Merely
> > that composers who do wish to do so will find that creating a
> recognizable
> > melodic personality is - if not crucial - at least one of the most
> effective
> > approaches to accomplishing it (IMO).
> >
> > I also felt as though the ideas were in Dimension were riffed on and
> > around... "changed up" adequately to provide a sense of movement and
> > variety.
> > So I personally gave it very high grades for establishing recognizable
> > melodic
> > content and then developing around it.
> >
> > On the other hand, I was left wishing that the melodic statements could
> have
> > been a bit longer and more developed over the course of the piece.
> >
> >
> > When it comes to music, I'm a largely self-taught, uneducated hack so I
> > don't
> > claim to have any "authoritative" base from which to make such
> > observations.
> > They are all merely the opinions of a listener.
> > Mark Stephens
> > ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
> > http://www.progpositivity.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>"In this regard I share Michael Sheiman's desire to reach a lot of people, although I have maybe a broader definition of what that means, since my focus is not on being about primarily focussed on pop/dance music, but including art music and what many would describe as "contemporary classical" or "neo-classical"."

   Oh man, the stereotypes.  What I make has digitally programmed drums, so, it seems, people jump the gun and call it "pop/dance".   However...looking at the instrument choices, the size of the chords, the amount of solos, the face virtually none of the beats follow dance rhythms...I swear what I do is more "artsy electronica" than anything else.

   Secondly, I certainly don't only support the style of music I make.  I'm a huge fan and supporter of rock, particularly shred rock and the more imaginative works of people like Steve Vai.  Why don't I produce rock then?  I simply don't have the coordination: from ages 13-17 I got a guitar and tried to play as smoothly and quickly as Vai, practicing daily...never got it and stopped getting better, so I humbled away from it and got a synthesizer instead.  I can tap ridiculously quickly, play harmonics anywhere on the fretboard, and do hammer-ons on one string quite quickly...but fast picking like Vai or doing runs while switching strings like he does...forget it!

>" But for me, this is broad enough to encompass what Michael wants, too, provided that it has an "art music" bent."

   And what I'm doing or the weird types of rock music I like aren't "art music"?  The flip side is, granted, there isn't much classical or avant-garde Ambient music that really interests me (minus some of Debussy's works)...but surely someone's liking classical doesn't automatically mean they are more "artsy" than someone who produces electronica and enjoys fairly avant-garde rock?
   If artsy means classical/neo-classical and avant-garde style music without beats (noting rock obviously has beats as well, it's not just "dance")...chances are I won't be so into it.  But if it includes rock, electronica (any type of electronica with a beat (dub-step, house, dance, ambient d&b, trip-hop, goa/psy-trance)...count me in! :-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
Aaron:
> >"In this regard I share Michael Sheiman's desire to reach a lot of people, although I have maybe a broader definition of what that means, since my focus is not on being about primarily focussed on pop/dance music, but including art music and what many would describe as "contemporary classical" or "neo-classical"."

Michael:
> �� Oh man, the stereotypes.� What I make has digitally programmed drums, so, it seems, people jump the gun and call it "pop/dance".�� However...looking at the instrument choices, the size of the chords, the amount of solos, the face virtually none of the beats follow dance rhythms...I swear what I do is more "artsy electronica" than anything else.

Aaron: Never said it wasn't! But you admit to being focussed on promoting microtonality from the confines of "beat-driven" music, as you've said here and elsewhere.

Aaron a while back:
> >" But for me, this is broad enough to encompass what Michael wants, too, provided that it has an "art music" bent."
>

Michael:
> �� And what I'm doing or the weird types of rock music I like aren't "art music"?

Aaron: never said they weren't! Man you're defensive... :)

Michael:
>� The flip side is, granted, there isn't much classical or avant-garde Ambient music that really interests me (minus some of Debussy's works)...but surely someone's liking classical doesn't automatically mean they are more "artsy" than someone who produces electronica and enjoys fairly avant-garde rock?

Aaron:
Not more artsy, but more likely broad-minded and intelligent enough to be interested in musical mastery as it presents itself throughout *all* the ages of history. So, more broadly informed, and open-minded, if anything.

How much classical music can you really say you know that well? There was a time when it was a simple matter of being well-educated and culturally literate. Not any more---for a certain generation, it's a badge of honor to be completely myopic and into the latest "trend". The influence of American-style Fox-news idiocracy I suppose. It's no better to ignore the music of Bach if you are a musician at all, in any style, than it would be to drink a beer, and, unknowing of who he was, piss on his statue in a park.

Michael:
> �� If artsy means classical/neo-classical and avant-garde style music without beats (noting rock obviously has beats as well, it's not just "dance")...chances are I won't be so into it.

Aaron:
Right there, you're only confirming my initial "Michael's into beats only" type statement.

Michael:
>� But if it includes rock, electronica (any type of electronica with a beat (dub-step, house, dance, ambient d&b, trip-hop, goa/psy-trance)...count me in! :-)

Aaron:
Since I can enjoy such things if they are obviously done with command and easy mastery, I'm grateful that I can consume a wider variety of things and not have "class warfare" (e.g. snobs versus hipsters) over them in the way you seem to constantly do, sniping at people who listen to anything without a beat as "square grandpas" who are slowing the progress of microtonality "reaching the masses"...I challenge you to have a listen to something like a Bach orchestral suite and tell me you've heard better basslines anywhere else. And look ma, no drums! And you will never hear more beautifully constructed and absolutely hypnotic melodies...lines in general!

I applaud you for taking seriously your particular corner of musical craft, but I would also encourage you to allow the study of past masters into your consciousness and not go around advertising your general disdain of historical art music. You will only gain by embracing the idea of learning from it; not to emulate, but to enrich your whole being.

AKJ

>"Aaron: Never said it wasn't! But you admit to being focussed on
promoting microtonality from the confines of "beat-driven" music, as
you've said here and elsewhere."
>"Right there, you're only confirming my initial "Michael's into beats only" type statement."

   Ok, stepping back...you said "I have maybe a broader definition of what that means, since my focus is
not on being about primarily focussed on pop/dance music, but including
art music"...focus on "maybe".  So perhaps you were just guessing.
  But it is true, I lean toward at least music with a drum beat.  Let's see: rock, pop, jazz, funk, disco, zydeco, blues, 80's, metal, bhangra, African music, salsa, merengue, reggae, r&b, most types of electronica including the odd downtempo lounge and psychedelic ambient stuff plus all sorts of mixed-form breakbeat music....  I'm not "dance focused"...but rather focused toward what I'm pretty sure is most music (IE a majority of music has drum beats, and certainly not just pop music).

   Now what doesn't have a beat?   Classical, pure ambient, avant-garde, maybe some chill-out.   I still am convinced...by saying "I like music that has a beat"...I'm actually saying I like a lot more music than someone who says "I like music without a beat".

>"Not any more---for a certain generation, it's a badge of honor to be completely myopic and into the latest "trend". "

   Which is ironic, because I'm very anti-trend.  I put all my snares on off-beats, use odd time-signatures, use abnormally huge chords, use organic sounding instruments when most electronica musicians use detuned saw-like analog waveforms...

  Compare that to your question of

...."Not more artsy, but more likely broad-minded and intelligent enough to
be interested in musical mastery as it presents itself throughout *all*
the ages of history. So, more broadly informed, and open-minded, if
anything.
         >>>>How much classical music can you really say you know that well? <<<<<<<"

    I've listened to a lot of Debussy and some Tchaicovsky (sp.?) and that's about it.  No I don't know the artists by name/period...I listened much for my grandfather because he liked it.
     I have tons of friends into advanced rock or jazz (weird stuff, definitely not "pop") who are also not interested in most classical.  To be realistic: I got into Joe Satriani's shred rock music by hearing it...same goes with Debussy...I don't really care what historical reason or significance an artist has so long as it sounds good to me (minus the case of an artist ripping off another artist ALA Vanilla Ice sampling Queen...which is just ethically sad).

>"Aaron: never said they weren't! Man you're defensive... :)"
...and then you say......
>"sniping at people who listen to anything without a beat as "square
grandpas" who are slowing the progress of microtonality "reaching the
masses""

   Duh, you are being judgemental.  I never ever said people who like classical music are anything like "square
grandpas"...and my grandpa certainly was not square (lol).  The only time I say anything about people in the classical music scene slowing the "reaching of the
masses" is when they hint I'm somehow less dedicated then them because by liking non-classical music or a classical-music-specific term I'm less of a musician or listener.  No one is going to help anyone further an art or motivate them by calling them ignorant or "hipsters" or anything like that...

>"I challenge you to have a listen to something like a Bach orchestral
suite and tell me you've heard better basslines anywhere else. And look
ma, no drums!"

   I don't particularly like them.  And you can't shove it down my throat to make me like them either.  Do I respect them as amazingly detailed and well done...of course...but that doesn't mean I have to like them.  To me, music is supposed to be about fun.  No, not being "hip" or following "trends"...just being fun.  Heck, listening to Weird Al Yankovich can be fun sometimes, depending on my mood.   So can Bluegrass, which admittedly sometimes does not have a beat.

>"and not go around advertising your general disdain of historical art music. "

  Argh....get over it.  I don't "disdain" it...I admire it as an artform but simply do not ENJOY listening to it as a listener or playing/emulating it as a musician.  Huge difference. 
     I reserve the right to respect something highly without enjoying it or wanting to learn it.  Why don't I like classical music?  Nope, it's not the "lack of technique" or "lack of rhythm" (both I think are superb in it)...it's the overall mood of it.  And I want to create moods I enjoy...
   Anyhow...I feel like I have Jehova's Witness knocking down my door with this argument you have against me... :-(

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron, and Michael:

Each of you has music that you like, and music that doesn't interest you. Could we leave it at that? "Art music" isn't a term that is, by nature, perjorative; the term is most commonly used to differentiate it from "pop music". Both are valid.

Besides, I like about 96% of the music that Aaron does, and what seems like about 90-94% of the music that Michael does, PLUS all of the various world styles that NEITHER of them mention, including the historic variants on all of the above, dating back centuries.

Therefore, I declare myself the winner.

Seriously, let's give this a rest. In a moment of complete synchronicity, I saw someone post on a forum I am a part of that couldn't be more worlds apart than MMM in subject matter. The opening was the following:

"I'm always impressed by how utterly polarizing debate in forums like this can become. People who start out with maybe slightly different opinions, or even with the same opinion but stated in somewhat different words, end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, saying extreme things, taking up strongly dogmatic positions, calling each other ridiculous names, and generally acting in ways that I have to think they would never act in (for instance) the actual physical company of other adult human beings."

So, in closing, let's move forward. And keep in mind that, with the exception of most current country-pop, Korean pansori song, and about half of the output of the Mannheim School (not that I don't appreciate the expanded orchestrations, just that I find the content lacking), I pretty much like every other piece of music, I win. I win big.

(he said, with all good humor...)

>""Art music" isn't a term that is, by nature, perjorative; the term is
most commonly used to differentiate it from "pop music". Both are valid."

   But let's at least make it clear I am not taking the side of "pop music", my music is not "pop music", and just because I want to make microtonal music more accessible in genres other than classical or genres with drum beats does not automatically make those genres "pop".  In most circle in America at least, drum and bass music is considered relatively "anti-pop" as is abstract breakbeat...and I do both of those. :-P

  I don't have a problem with Aaron's preferences in music and even (if case may be) he dislikes mine...
  I, however, do have a problem with Aaron or anyone else blatantly mis-labelling both what I do musically and what I support.  If Aaron said "I don't think abstract electronic music with a beat shows anywhere near the mastery of classical music"...I'd just let it rest as at least he would be somewhat correctly labeling what I do, even if in an insult.

   Meanwhile...I just wish I could do what I do...
>"Besides, I like about 96% of the music that Aaron does, and what seems like about 90-94% of the music that Michael does,"

....(and apparently I'm not too shabby at it)...without some raging personal argument about how I need to learn classical or how I must have some nasty problem because I don't know some of the terms in it and have to listen and learn as I go on this list (which seems predominantly neo-classical at times)...it's like being told as a Buddhist to magically turn Catholic or else this weird thing called "The Trinity" will haunt me. :-D

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Argue, argue, argue.

I'm tired of it, Michael. Others are as well. Additionally, I've tried off-list to reason with you, and I've been as even-handed as I can be, but you insist on being defensive, on taking a very narrow view of music and the music world and then applying very small labels to it, and refusing to consider the way other people look at music. I even spoke to the issue in non-musical terms, and it went completely over your head, or it was ignored.

I'm not going to argue any more.

Jon>"Additionally, I've tried off-list to reason with you, and I've been as
even-handed as I can be, but you insist on being defensive, on taking a
very narrow view of music and the music world and then applying very
small labels to it"

    Simply put: I very much respect classical music but do not enjoy it and do not deserve to be harassed about it (no one does, not matter how much/little they know about it).  I do not make small labels of things and will not let people make small labels of what I do: and I dare you to quote me doing that.
     Also, what I do is NOT pop music and what I'm going for is accessibility, not genre specific.  If you and a couple of other people stopped trying to pigeonhole me in this ridiculous pop/dance.  I have been defensive lately: go figure, I'm being attacked over ridiculous off-topic things: and singling people out based on what genres you "think" they like is insane.  If you are wondering if I like a genre or what type of music I do, please take the time to ask me...chances are I know more about my own compositions and compositional goals than you do (no kidding, I write them).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron,

Thanks for the kind words. And yes, I'm a layman. I'm so far from professional I can't even see amateur from here. My entire "corpus", mostly of unfinished experiments, can be found here:
http://www.freivald.org/~jake/music.html . If you like "neo-classical" music, then you might like "Resolve", which uses all twelve tones but isn't in the Schoenbergian style. There are some other classical-ish pieces there, but they're a little too typical to be interesting.

> More importantly, I think the opinion of the non-professional musician, if
> that's what you are, as you claim, is pertinent. Speaking for myself, I find
> that I would rather write a piece that I felt had a deep craft that I
> appreciated, yet spoke to the largest possible population. Like Mozart said:
> "great music has something for the connoisseur and the commoner both".

Well, if you're focused on neoclassical music, then you're not exactly reaching for the mass market. But I hear what you're saying; there's something special about reaching someone who's not an expert in the field, without pandering to them with a saccharine "product". We want to write things that we can be proud of *and* that lots of people like. It's a tall order, but a worthwhile goal.

On another matter, I can see why Michael Sheiman took offense to your language; it's similar to the kind of thing "literary" authors and reviewers say about "genre" fiction (science fiction, fantasy, mystery, romance, etc.). Some of the best science fiction is of the highest literary quality, and some literary fiction is offal (pun intended). Sometimes literary authors will write stories that clearly fall into some genre, but because they're not "genre" writers, it will get acclaim that well-written science fiction will never see. Similarly, even if you see what Michael does as "pop/dance" (which he clearly doesn't), that doesn't mean his aspirations aren't similarly broad or artistic.

Not that it sounded like you meant to offend him. This is the kind of thing that people with different perspectives will butt heads about, but hopefully a reconciliation isn't far behind. :)

Regards,
Jake

Jake to Aaron>"Well, if you're focused on neoclassical music, then you're not exactly reaching for the mass market. But I hear what you're saying; there's something special about reaching someone who's not an expert in the field, without pandering to them with a saccharine "product". We want to write things that we can be proud of *and* that lots of people like. It's a tall order, but a worthwhile goal."

   Right...and I think making something also worthwhile to others is an admirable goal and (even) that it applies to "odd" arts.  For example, if I can take one of Sevish's drum-and-bass pieces and show it to a good few Americans (IE people typical not into drum and bass and who often don't even know what it is) and get a good response...that says to me Sevish is truly doing something special.
   Same goes for neo-classical and classical music...I showed my g/f (who typically dislikes classical music) some Debussy music and her jaw dropped...she loved it.  I don't think genre, ultimately, should be a do-or-die factor if music succeeds publicly.    If someone thinks they can take a normally hard to promote genre and make it work for "the commoner"...more power to them!

Jake>"Similarly, even if you see what Michael does as "pop/dance" (which he clearly doesn't), that doesn't mean his aspirations aren't similarly broad or artistic."

   Exactly...and in the same way I would never go "oh Aaron, he does neoclassical, so he could never turn around and do glitch/breakbeats...he's too stuck in his genre". 

  A couple of huge examples of artists with a "dual personalities": Guns and Roses (yes, Axel Rose composed all the orchestral backing for "November Rain"), BT (said by many to have invented Trance, but has also written movie soundtracks), Steve Vai (shred rocker...but has also written entire Operas), Astral Projection (do "mainstream" goa trance in Israel...but also all sorts of avant-garde Ambient pieces)...  I would never say a musician is defined by a genre, even if/when most people consider a certain genre their "staple".  Did I mention Billy Gibbons of rock group ZZ Top is "secretly" a huge supporter and fan of abstract electronica like Aphex Twin (which is about as anti-pop/rock as you can get)?!  Most people would never guess...

  Perhaps we can agree simply not to judge our artistry by what genres we get known for as doing (for whatever reason)?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>    But let's at least make it clear I am not taking the side of "pop music", my music is not "pop music", and just because I want to make microtonal music more accessible in genres other than classical or genres with drum beats does not automatically make those genres "pop".  In most circle in America at least, drum and bass music is considered relatively "anti-pop" as is abstract breakbeat...and I do both of those. :-P

You can call a Debussy prelude a "song". You can complain when people call your music "pop". But doing both is cheating. You should decide what philosophy you have about these terminological issues, and stick to it.

>"You can call a Debussy prelude a "song". You can complain when people
call your music "pop". But doing both is cheating."

   In only one instance did I call a group of links to pieces of music from Debussy in a message on this list from Mike B "songs".
  And when Juhani gave me links on the definition of "song"...i stopped and immediately started calling them "pieces of music".  The only thing I complained about was people flat-out name calling me for not getting/"guessing" the definition of "song" before that...why should I get name-called for a simple and non-repeated mistake?!

    So what you are doing now...is not giving me due credit for listening and learning the term (which I did) after that one mistake and forming a permanent grudge even though I learned it...and that is ridiculous. 

>"You should decide
what philosophy you have about these terminological issues, and stick to
it."
  I believe in using correct terms...but I don't believe in calling people who mix up a term even once (and don't repeat the mistake) idiots as I have been called.
.......
   Look, if I use a term incorrectly, you or anyone else reserves the right to simply say "that's wrong, the correct term is...".   I will listen and start using the term correctly AFTER you give me the correct term...just don't send me on a "treasure hunt" trying to look up the term myself (especially when, chances are, many online sources ALSO misuse the term...Lord knows how many web pages I've seen mention "instrumental songs" with no singers). 

    However you do not have the right to go around expecting me to learn most terms in classical music in advance considering it's not one of the genres I want to learn.  Occasionally I will make mistakes, no big deal...give me a clear link to an answer and I will read it.  But don't expect me to have psychic powers to guess what you mean in advance by saying things like "It's not a song*(&^&*(!!!..." (which only tell me I'm wrong but doesn't give me the faintest clue what the right term is).

   Also, knock on wood...genre definitions are fairly easy to find and consistently defined (almost anywhere online) while the definitions of terms like Motet, Polyphony vs. Hetrophony...are not (often different sources have different definitions for such terms).  And I don't think it's exactly a fair comparison...looking up the historical terms proves much more challenging. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Jake to Aaron>"Well, if you're focused on neoclassical music, then you're
> not exactly reaching for the mass market. But I hear what you're saying;
> there's something special about reaching someone who's not an expert in the
> field, without pandering to them with a saccharine "product". We want to
> write things that we can be proud of *and* that lots of people like. It's a
> tall order, but a worthwhile goal."
>
> Right...and I think making something also worthwhile to others is an
> admirable goal and (even) that it applies to "odd" arts. For example, if I
> can take one of Sevish's drum-and-bass pieces and show it to a good few
> Americans (IE people typical not into drum and bass and who often don't even
> know what it is) and get a good response...that says to me Sevish is truly
> doing something special.
>

Sevish is very good at what he does, I agree.

> Same goes for neo-classical and classical music...I showed my g/f (who
> typically dislikes classical music) some Debussy music and her jaw
> dropped...she loved it. I don't think genre, ultimately, should be a
> do-or-die factor if music succeeds publicly. If someone thinks they can
> take a normally hard to promote genre and make it work for "the
> commoner"...more power to them!
>

Interesting how you show your girlfriend what you know. I'm trying to point
out 800+ years of music history that you, by your own admission, do not
know. There's what you know that you know, there's what you know you don't
know. And then there's what you don't know you don't know. You have decided
to close the door on "most classical music" by saying "I don't like it. I
don't like the mood". News flash: there's no such thing as "the one mood of
classical music". Anyway, I generally don't admire folks without a basic
level of artistic and intellectual curiosity and hunger, not to mention
disdain for acquiring a broader perspective.

Did you even listen to the Bach example I mentioned? Or are you just being
knee-jerk when you said "I don't like it". Anyway, someone not liking Bach,
um....well, I don't even know where to begin with that. I would say you need
your ears checked for starters.

> Jake>"Similarly, even if you see what Michael does as "pop/dance" (which he
> clearly doesn't), that doesn't mean his aspirations aren't similarly broad
> or artistic."
>
> Exactly...and in the same way I would never go "oh Aaron, he does
> neoclassical, so he could never turn around and do glitch/breakbeats...he's
> too stuck in his genre".
>
>
I'm not neo-classical exclusively. I've written in a broad variety of
styles, including a sort of chiptune style complete with drum track, etc....
If there's one thing true of me, is that I rarely do the same type of thing
twice.

I happen to be interested in expanding on and exploring the IDM style as
well, although I have other more pressing projects.

> A couple of huge examples of artists with a "dual personalities": Guns
> and Roses (yes, Axel Rose composed all the orchestral backing for "November
> Rain"), BT (said by many to have invented Trance, but has also written movie
> soundtracks), Steve Vai (shred rocker...but has also written entire Operas),
> Astral Projection (do "mainstream" goa trance in Israel...but also all sorts
> of avant-garde Ambient pieces)... I would never say a musician is defined
> by a genre, even if/when most people consider a certain genre their
> "staple". Did I mention Billy Gibbons of rock group ZZ Top is "secretly" a
> huge supporter and fan of abstract electronica like Aphex Twin (which is
> about as anti-pop/rock as you can get)?! Most people would never guess...
>
>
Aphex Twin, check. BT, check. Astral Projection, don't know their work. I
respect Steve Vai, but the whole shred thing isn't to my taste. Have about
as much respect for ZZ Top and Guns and Roses as I do for Adolph Hitler.

It's all the rage for pop musicians to claim they've written "operas". I
can't comment, except to say you are wanting it both ways: you don't want to
measure greatness by having written in a classical style, yet you want
people to be considered great for having written an "opera".

There's plenty of trash in any genre, and classical is no exception. I agree
with you that we need to judge things on their own terms.

>
> Perhaps we can agree simply not to judge our artistry by what genres we
> get known for as doing (for whatever reason)?
>

I'm not sure where you ever saw any statement from me wherein I judged your
artistry? Can you give me any direct quote? I'm more talking about your
apparent lack of intellectual and artistic curiosity. And, frankly, for
being such a whiner when people in the field try to gently correct your
terminology ("song vs. piece") and you start to make it about "class
warfare" and "classical snobs". Not only that, you waste kilobyte after
kilobyte of internet bandwidth STILL whining about it. Gimme a break.

I did make a judgement about what I perceive to be you narrow-mindedness,
and you admit to it, so I don't see the problem. And I find it unbelievable
that anyone serious about music in any genre would for instance actively
ignore absorbing as much of the music of J.S. Bach (at the very least) as
they can in this lifetime, so I will tell you honestly that this strikes me
as pretty limited and limiting mindset.

I basically, at the outset, wouldn't respect a musician (beyond basic human
courtesy) anyone who ignored something so vastly great as Bach's music, not
for being ignorant of it---no, because we are all ignorant about lots of
things---but for knowing it's there, knowing that just about every great
musician in history has bowed to Bach's genius, and deciding that it was not
worth their time. For not even being *curious* to investigate. I just can't
respect that, period, and to me, this makes you not worth *my* time, at
least on a musical level. You may be a nice guy on a personal level, and I'd
be polite to you in an elevator, etc.....

But that's just my opinion, and if you don't care, there's no problem. I'm
as entitled to my subjective judgements as you are.

You should know that within the group of great musicians you probably adore,
(e.g. Steve Vai) there are bound to be people who admit that they owe an
immense amount to Bach, sometimes superficially so, sometimes on a deep
level.

Enough said, I'm bowing out of anything further, it's getting nauseating.

AKJ

>
>
>
>

>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aaron>"Did you even listen to the Bach example I mentioned?"
  Yes, I did.

>"I'm not neo-classical exclusively. I've written in a broad variety of styles, including a sort of chiptune style complete with drum track"

Fantastic, as that is my point.  Just because you do a certain genre does not mean that is all you do.  Hence my examples of Steve Vai, Axel Rose, BT...as being artistically open-minded despite being known for one genre. You're not neo-classical exclusively...never thought you were...and, guess what...I'm not exclusively a composer or appreciator of one genre either.

>"I'm trying to point out 800+ years of music history that you, by your own admission, do not know. "

Far as classical, I don't. Far as electronic, blues and rock...I know a whole lot...those types of music have equally valid and valuable histories (as Jon hinted). And I feel no need to be forced to learn, say, the history of every genre under the sun.

And by the way, this is NOT a music history list: you are veering far off-topic...

>"I happen to be interested in expanding on and exploring the IDM style as
well, although I have other more pressing projects."

Interesting, would be interested to hear it when you have time for it and it comes out.
For those of you who haven't heard it yet...Jacky Ligon makes some wickedly cool microtonal music many may consider IDM. Yes, it does have beats, no, it's not pop.

>"And, frankly, for being such a whiner when people in the field try to gently correct your terminology ("song vs. piece") and you start to make it about "class warfare" and "classical snobs"."

BTW, saying "IT'S NOT A SONG &*(^*(&^!!!" is not gentle. I have never used the term "classical snobs" either. What I did say is that by snapping at people for even the slightest technical error and showing huge impatience, you are probably scaring away people who could have otherwise been interested in microtonality. And, to be fair, I do think that kind of attitude is toxic to teaching and/or generating interest in our art: this isn't the military: you can't just crack a whip to make people learn or blindly assume people don't want to learn because they don't get everything right the first time.

>"you don't want to measure greatness by having written in a classical style, yet you want people to be considered great for having written an "opera"."

No...my point is those musicians (such as Steve Vai) have written in styles OTHER than the styles they are known for IE that's it's not fair to judge a musician's open-mindedness by a single genre they are most known for (IE rock, in Vai's case).

>"I basically, at the outset, wouldn't respect a musician (beyond basic human courtesy) anyone who ignored something so vastly great as Bach's music"

You see, that attitude of "you like what I like...or you must be dumb" is likely to drive people away from this artform of microtonal music. I certainly don't go around demanding people either respect Steve Vai or are not musicians...

>"You should know that within the group of great musicians you probably adore, (e.g. Steve Vai) there are bound to be people who admit that they owe an immense amount to Bach, sometimes superficially so, sometimes on a deep level."

Aaron, you're basically playing the part of Jehovah's Witness here...either I agree with your opinion or I am forced to label myself as ignorant. I'll send this out as a message to the list as a whole:

A) You, of course, deserve the right to like whatever music you like and do so without being harassed that you only like what you like "out of ignorance"

B) You can respect an art without liking it (IE I respect Bach as a musician, but don't like what I've heard from him)

C) By saying people who don't like the type of music you like must degrade themselves as being "ignorant"...you are pretty much calling yourself a "God of Music"...and such an opinion is likely to scare people away from the exact art you are trying to "convert" them toward.

Hey Michael,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> .
>
> >"And, frankly, for being such a whiner when people in the field try to
> gently correct your terminology ("song vs. piece") and you start to make it
> about "class warfare" and "classical snobs"."
>
> BTW, saying "IT'S NOT A SONG &*(^*(&^!!!" is not gentle.

When did I say that?

> I have never used the term "classical snobs" either.

/makemicromusic/topicId_25791.html#26042

Okay, you didn't say "snob", you said "snooty". My bad.

> What I did say is that by snapping at people for even the slightest
> technical error and showing huge impatience, you are probably scaring away
> people who could have otherwise been interested in microtonality.

Yes, I've been meaning to scare you away, and that hasn't worked, so there
goes that theory! :)

> And, to be fair, I do think that kind of attitude is toxic to teaching
> and/or generating interest in our art: this isn't the military: you can't
> just crack a whip to make people learn or blindly assume people don't want
> to learn because they don't get everything right the first time.
>

I'm not making you do anything. I'm just saying I don't respect your
narrowness. Do you understand the difference?

> >"I basically, at the outset, wouldn't respect a musician (beyond basic
> human courtesy) anyone who ignored something so vastly great as Bach's
> music"
>
>
> You see, that attitude of "you like what I like...or you must be dumb" is
> likely to drive people away from this artform of microtonal music. I
> certainly don't go around demanding people either respect Steve Vai or are
> not musicians...
>

I am not demanding anything of you. How could I? I'm just saying I think
you're narrow in your musical outlook, which you admit, and to that I'll add
that you have a talent for long-windedness and "argumentum ad nauseum",
which everyone around here has noticed, too.

>
>
> >"You should know that within the group of great musicians you probably
> adore, (e.g. Steve Vai) there are bound to be people who admit that they owe
> an immense amount to Bach, sometimes superficially so, sometimes on a deep
> level."
>
> Aaron, you're basically playing the part of Jehovah's Witness
> here...either I agree with your opinion or I am forced to label myself as
> ignorant.

I'm not 'forcing' you to do anything. if you want to label yourself as
ignorant, go ahead. I would call it more accurately "myopia".

> I'll send this out as a message to the list as a whole:
>
> A) You, of course, deserve the right to like whatever music you like and do
> so without being harassed that you only like what you like "out of
> ignorance"
>
> B) You can respect an art without liking it (IE I respect Bach as a
> musician, but don't like what I've heard from him)
>
> C) By saying people who don't like the type of music you like must degrade
> themselves as being "ignorant"...you are pretty much calling yourself a "God
> of Music"...and such an opinion is likely to scare people away from the
> exact art you are trying to "convert" them toward.
>

Man, Michael. What is this thing you have about "big bad microtonal people
who will scare poor little old me away from microtonal music"....anyone who
would be 'scared' away from doing something that was otherwise calling to
them is most likely a mediocre artist in every way, shape or form anyway.

Anyway, I cannot be tempted to continue wasting my time on this. I resent
it. So here come the filters...

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

> I basically, at the outset, wouldn't respect a musician (beyond basic human
> courtesy) anyone who ignored something so vastly great as Bach's music, not
> for being ignorant of it---no, because we are all ignorant about lots of
> things---but for knowing it's there, knowing that just about every great
> musician in history has bowed to Bach's genius, and deciding that it was not
> worth their time. For not even being *curious* to investigate. I just can't
> respect that, period, and to me, this makes you not worth *my* time, at
> least on a musical level. You may be a nice guy on a personal level, and I'd
> be polite to you in an elevator, etc.....

So you don't respect me, then?

I've never in my life listened to any entire work by J.S. Bach. I can count the number of classical pieces I've *actively* listened to and enjoyed on my hands, and most are solo piano works I've only heard as performed by my music-major friends.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>    Look, if I use a term incorrectly, you or anyone else reserves the right to simply say "that's wrong, the correct term is...".   I will listen and start using the term correctly AFTER you give me the correct term...

This ignores the fact that a lot of people, including me, don't know how to tell "dance/pop" from something which is to you very different. And unlike the case with "song", consulting a dictionary will not help. Merriam-Websters has this for song: "a short musical composition of words and music". From that you could deduce that calling a piano piece a "song" might not be understood by everyone. The same dictionary has many definitions for "pop", none of them relevant, and no definition for "pop music". The Free Online Dictionary has "Of, relating to, or specializing in popular music". This definition is of no use at all in determining what your objection is to "pop" as an adjective in your case.

>just don't send me on a "treasure hunt" trying to look up the term myself (especially when, chances are, many online sources ALSO misuse the term...Lord knows how many web pages I've seen mention "instrumental songs" with no singers). 

I've just proven it's easy to look up "song" and see that "song" in classical music is simply the ordinary English meaning you will find in any dictionary. What's hard, and may be impossible, is looking up whatever fine distinctions you have in mind.

>     However you do not have the right to go around expecting me to learn most terms in classical music in advance considering it's not one of the genres I want to learn. 

People might expect you to know ordinary English. However, I agree flaming you was not the best response. But you have NO right whatsoever to expect people to know all the obscure terminology of whatever genre you like, whose name I may not even pronounce since I don't know what it is and you've ruled out both "pop" and "rock". People complain I expect them to know what, for instance, an "abelian group" is, but at least I give links and definitions. You just sit back and expect, and then flame people for not knowing something they will not find in a dictionary nor in any easy manner, if at all, online.

> Occasionally I will make mistakes, no big deal...give me a clear link to an answer and I will read it.  But don't expect me to have psychic powers to guess what you mean in advance by saying things like "It's not a song*(&^&*(!!!..." (which only tell me I'm wrong but doesn't give me the faintest clue what the right term is).

Carl tends to be quick on the draw. However, did it not occur to you to look the word up? When people flame you for what they see as bad diction, that can help. You might even be able to come back with a suitably snotty reply.

>    Also, knock on wood...genre definitions are fairly easy to find and consistently defined (almost anywhere online
while the definitions of terms like Motet, Polyphony vs. Hetrophony...are not (often different sources have different definitions for such terms).

Actually, the complete opposite is true. You ain't gonna find out what "pop" means by grubbing about online. The Wikipedia article says its a special kind of popular music, featuring short, simple songs often oriented to the young and inclusive of at least some rock or soft rock and roll. Which doesn't help me much, presuming it is even accurate. Your music, you say, isn't pop. What about the Beatles? The Lovin' Spoonful? The Carpenters? U2? How the hell do I know? On the other hand the definitions of classical subgenres seem to me to be much more helpful.

> And I don't think it's exactly a fair comparison...looking up the historical terms proves much more challenging. 

I don't think you tried, or you would have discovered that, unlike pop, it's actually not challenging.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:03 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I basically, at the outset, wouldn't respect a musician (beyond basic
> human
> > courtesy) anyone who ignored something so vastly great as Bach's music,
> not
> > for being ignorant of it---no, because we are all ignorant about lots of
> > things---but for knowing it's there, knowing that just about every great
> > musician in history has bowed to Bach's genius, and deciding that it was
> not
> > worth their time. For not even being *curious* to investigate. I just
> can't
> > respect that, period, and to me, this makes you not worth *my* time, at
> > least on a musical level. You may be a nice guy on a personal level, and
> I'd
> > be polite to you in an elevator, etc.....
>
> So you don't respect me, then?
>
>
I do, sure.

> I've never in my life listened to any entire work by J.S. Bach.

Sigh. Okay, now I see you mean to put a chip on your shoulder and be a
badass who dares me to knock it off about all this, so I'm not going to
bite. If that works for you to walk around (seemingly---are you?) prideful
about being ignorant about the music of the greatest musician the West has
ever produced, be my guest. You wouldn't be the first, and you're not likely
to be the last.

I can count the number of classical pieces I've *actively* listened to and
> enjoyed on my hands, and most are solo piano works I've only heard as
> performed by my music-major friends.
>

My opinion is that you'd only stand to gain and benefit from changing that
path. But what do I know? I'm one of those "snooty" classically-trained
people that's "scaring people away from microtonality" when they should be
writing in ever more "accessible" styles.

Boo!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just a quick note on your remark: "Who cares If You Listen" was never
Babbitt's choice for a title, it was added by an editor. The article
itself is quite reasonable (as I recall, long after reading it) and does
not reflect the attitude implied by the somewhat sensationalistic title.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Babbitt - "In 1958, Babbitt
achieved unsought notoriety through an article in the popular magazine
High Fidelity (Babbitt 1958). His title for the article, "The Composer
as Specialist", was changed, without his knowledge or consent, to "Who
Cares if You Listen?" More than 30 years later, he commented that,
because of that "offensively vulgar title", he was "still ... far more
likely to be known as the author of 'Who Cares if You Listen?' than as
the composer of music to which you may or may not care to listen"
(Babbitt 1991, 17)."

- Dave

On 3/9/2011 7:50 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
>
> Layman or not, you write perceptively and with clarity about music.
>
> More importantly, I think the opinion of the non-professional musician, if
> that's what you are, as you claim, is pertinent. Speaking for myself, I find
> that I would rather write a piece that I felt had a deep craft that I
> appreciated, yet spoke to the largest possible population. Like Mozart said:
> "great music has something for the connoisseur and the commoner both".
>
> In this regard I share Michael Sheiman's desire to reach a lot of people,
> although I have maybe a broader definition of what that means, since my
> focus is not on being about primarily focussed on pop/dance music, but
> including art music and what many would describe as "contemporary classical"
> or "neo-classical". But for me, this is broad enough to encompass what
> Michael wants, too, provided that it has an "art music" bent.
>
> It's exactly the opposite of Milton Babitt's attitude, when he penned "Who
> cares if you listen?"
>
> AKJ

Gene wrote:

>This ignores the fact that a lot of people, including me, don't know
>how to tell "dance/pop" from something which is to you very different.
>And unlike the case with "song", consulting a dictionary will not
>help.

http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
> Sigh. Okay, now I see you mean to put a chip on your shoulder and be a
> badass who dares me to knock it off about all this, so I'm not going to
> bite. If that works for you to walk around (seemingly---are you?) prideful
> about being ignorant about the music of the greatest musician the West has
> ever produced, be my guest. You wouldn't be the first, and you're not likely
> to be the last.

But I'm *not* proud of it! I was going to add that the reason I haven't listened to any Bach in entirety is because I don't feel like I'm musically intelligent enough to appreciate Bach in any meaningful sense, but I left that part out. *Most* classical music is as vast and incomprehensible to me as the night sky; I don't understand its patterns, I can't parse its layers, and the only way I can respond to it emotionally is to let it wash over me like a wave of sound and see if the overall texture of the piece moves me or not. I can't relate to it and it makes me feel stupid. The only exception to this for me is minimalism, which I can understand and therefore relate to.

For me to relate to a piece of music, I have to understand how it is put together enough to put something similar together myself. I can't compose classical music, I don't understand even basic counter-point, and when I've tried to learn, it has gone very poorly. I can't even fake it the way I can sometimes plausibly fake jazz (another universe of music outside my comprehension).

Put it this way: to say classical music is "Greek" to me would be a gross understatement; it's more like "Cantonese".

> My opinion is that you'd only stand to gain and benefit from changing that
> path. But what do I know? I'm one of those "snooty" classically-trained
> people that's "scaring people away from microtonality" when they should be
> writing in ever more "accessible" styles.

Studying Bach would benefit my music about as much as studying Goethe in the original German would benefit my writing, and would require a similar time investment. I'd have to go back to school for it, no question. Taking private lessons is not nearly immersive enough for me to learn the language. Given that my music serves primarily my leisure and perhaps also my narcissism, expending effort to improve my compositional techniques and what not would not really be of any value to me as a human being, since I can already write (more or less) the sort of music that I am interested in writing.

Yet, unlike some people, I begrudge people neither their ignorance nor their education. I don't see any form of music as being superior or inferior to any other. I don't see a 3 minute pop song as having any more or less aesthetic value as a 4-movement symphony. To me that would be like saying Spanish is a "better" or "worse" language than Mandarin Chinese. I listen to and write what I can relate to, and I expect that it is the same for all musicians. If someone cannot relate to a certain musical idiom and is not willing to take the time to learn to appreciate it, that's no more reprehensible than refusing to learn a language in order to read the works of that language's great poets. I could care less how many people speak the same musical language that I do, or whether my works are in a musical language intelligible to the majority of my countrymen.

But I also don't care if I'm paid for my music, I don't care if I get a reputation for my music, and I don't care about how my music serves any social or political goals.

-Igs

Carl,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

I remember that site! I hadn't seen it in years. BTW, did you know that no electronic music existed before 1982? It's true! He says it right there!!

Actually, I'm going to listen to Michael's piece later tonight and use that site to try to put it in a category, and time how long it takes. This should be fun.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> >This ignores the fact that a lot of people, including me, don't know
> >how to tell "dance/pop" from something which is to you very different.
> >And unlike the case with "song", consulting a dictionary will not
> >help.
>
> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

You think I can look up "pop" there and discover if Michael's music is "pop"? How does that work?

Hi Jon,

>> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/
>
>I remember that site! I hadn't seen it in years. BTW, did you know
>that no electronic music existed before 1982? It's true! He says it
>right there!!
>Actually, I'm going to listen to Michael's piece later tonight and use
>that site to try to put it in a category, and time how long it takes.
>This should be fun.

It's not exhaustive or up to date, so you may not succeed. And
the whole business of electronic music "genres" is also waaay more
arcane than the "song" vs "piece" deal. Finally, in the past Michael
has posted some, let me say odd, opinions of the genres in which
certain famous electronic artists work, so I wouldn't take his word
as gospel on whatever case you're looking at.

Good luck! -Carl

Gene wrote:
>> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/
>
>You think I can look up "pop" there and discover if Michael's music is
>"pop"? How does that work?

No, it's a lot harder than looking up "song". Just saying, there
are resources for this. -Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
> >> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/
> >
> >You think I can look up "pop" there and discover if Michael's music is
> >"pop"? How does that work?
>
> No, it's a lot harder than looking up "song". Just saying, there
> are resources for this. -Carl

Nothing there I couldn't learn in a one-semester course in this stuff. If there was such a thing, and if I had fifteen weeks I wanted to devote to the task.

On 3/10/2011 3:40 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
> the reason I haven't listened to any Bach in entirety is because I don't feel like I'm musically intelligent enough to appreciate Bach in any meaningful sense

Pretty funny reason. If everyone waited until they were <insert-field-here>ly intelligent enough to appreciate <insert-art-form-here>, then 99% of the population would never engage (<insert-engagement-senses-here>) with it. Most people who imbibe an art form are casual users, and that's nothing to be afraid of, and nothing to be ashamed of. So what?

Go ahead, sometime when convenient, put the B Minor Mass or WTC into your x-Pod when you go to bed, crank up the volume, and have a listen. ;-)

Rick

Carl>"It's not exhaustive or up to date, so you may not succeed. And the whole business of electronic music "genres" is also waaay more arcane than the "song" vs "piece" deal. "

    Well I'll give you all a hint: my song has many drums (ALA big beat or "chemical") but does not follow drum patterns considered standard of any genre and does not use big-beat-style aggressive/punchy sounds yet has similar amount of groove/swing. 
    Meanwhile, most of the instrumentals are soft, organic, and "Ibiza Trance" like.  But Ibiza Trance has no solos.  The jazz melodies and solos are pretty close to deep house...the drum arrangement (IE softness of the hits) more ambient... 
  What I'm saying is: basically any single "genre classification" is most likely going to fall very flat of covering all aspects of the song.

>"Finally, in the past Michael has posted some, let me say odd, opinions of the genres in which certain famous electronic artists work"

   Admittedly, of ambient, yes.  I said it was "soundscapey" and, low and behold, the definition of it on link you recommended IE http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/ says "wallpaper music".  So, apparently, the guy who wrote it is just as crazy as I am. ;-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gene>"This ignores the fact that a lot of people, including me, don't know
how to tell "dance/pop" from something which is to you very different."..."But you have NO right whatsoever to expect people to know all the obscure terminology of whatever genre you like"

   Firstly, I NEVER said I expect people to know the exact terminology of the genre(s) I like...all I said is I wish people realize the music I make is NOT POP MUSIC after I specifically say it is not pop music.

  Ok, enough of this...
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music

Note it says
>"The beat and the melodies tend to be simple, with limited harmonic accompaniment."
   Nearly every song I make is loaded with 7-note (or more!) chords...so much for "limited harmonic accompaniment".

>" simple songs utilizing technological innovations to produce new variations on existing themes"
   What existing theme am I following?  I surely am not remixing anything or putting decorations over standard chord progressions....

>"a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments"

  What existing trend am I following?  Not 4 on the floor beats.  Not hip hop rhythms.  Not vocoded or auto-tuned vocals.  Not the whole French/Funk House thing.  Not the boy band thing.  So...what is it?

>"with a focus on melodies and catchy hooks"

    My songs focus on chords and layered melodies, not catchy hooks with everything else in the background.  In fact, I've had people complain to me I should lay back on the big chords and layered melodies and concentrate on simple leads and far less extravagant layering.

>"much pop music is intended to encourage dancing, or it uses dance-oriented beats or rhythms"

  This is the one thing I consider my music to have in common with pop: it's made to have a consistent sense of energy, of groove.  Then again, so does a whole lot of music, including African music, which is also certainly not pop.

>"The Wikipedia article says its a special kind of popular music,
featuring short, simple songs often oriented to the young and inclusive
of at least some rock or soft rock and roll."

    Right, and my music is nothing like any of the above.  No kidding...  My music is about as pop as Igs's or Jacky Ligon's music is IE not at all.

>"Your music, you say, isn't pop. What about the Beatles?  U2? "

   These are rock groups who often write love ballads with relatively simple melodic hooks oriented toward younger audiences.  No kidding, they are pop.  The Beatles is pretty darn close to a boy band...though what they did with harmony was actually pretty non-pop-like and complex.

   It sounds like a whole lot of people...are changing the definition of "pop" and then using it as an excuse to hate modern electronica (especially the type with beats, no matter what the beat style is).  Which is pretty sad...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>    It sounds like a whole lot of people...are changing the definition of "pop" and then using it as an excuse to hate modern electronica (especially the type with beats, no matter what the beat style is).  Which is pretty sad...

Get it together: no one around here is hating electronica. You, yourself, have now spoken at length at how fractured the genres are. In all my *life* I've never met a general style/genre/set-of-genres as the extended electronica world is that is So Predominantly Obsessed with fracturing everything down into some micro-niche.

In my case, I can't even come close. So, in a nutshell, I don't know WHAT to call music like what you produced in "Dimension", except what you tell us. So next time, give it a name yourself, and I'll call it what you like. Could it be any better than that?

In spite of that that Techno site said, I've been listening to electronic music, and electronica, since the late 1960's. That is a hell of a lot of changing labels to keep track of. Keep that in mind when you give us a break.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@> wrote:
> > Sigh. Okay, now I see you mean to put a chip on your shoulder and be a
> > badass who dares me to knock it off about all this, so I'm not going to
> > bite. If that works for you to walk around (seemingly---are you?) prideful
> > about being ignorant about the music of the greatest musician the West has
> > ever produced, be my guest. You wouldn't be the first, and you're not likely
> > to be the last.
>
> But I'm *not* proud of it! I was going to add that the reason I haven't listened to any Bach in entirety is because I don't feel like I'm musically intelligent enough to appreciate Bach in any meaningful sense, but I left that part out. *Most* classical music is as vast and incomprehensible to me as the night sky; I don't understand its patterns, I can't parse its layers, and the only way I can respond to it emotionally is to let it wash over me like a wave of sound and see if the overall texture of the piece moves me or not. I can't relate to it and it makes me feel stupid. The only exception to this for me is minimalism, which I can understand and therefore relate to.

Have you listened to Wendy Carlos' Switched-On Bach? If you can't
parse that you must have some form of amusia. :)

Kalle

Jon>"Get it together: no one around here is hating electronica. You,
yourself, have now spoken at length at how fractured the genres are. "

     Actually, I haven't at all...what I said is the songs I make contain strong elements of many electronic genres.   Dare I give myself credit but, I'm saying the styles I make are quite diverse, not that the genres in electronica are "non-diverse".

>"In all my *life* I've never met a general style/genre/set-of-genres as
the extended electronica world is that is So Predominantly Obsessed with
fracturing everything down into some micro-niche."

   Man, look at what you just said!...there's some clear evidence about someone (namely you) who appears to be downright looking for a good excuse to hate electronica...

    Need some counter examples?  Deep house and Atmospheric Jungle, for example, contain strong influences from multiple "normal" genres at once...it's not uncommon to hear jazz, funk, ambient, rock, Bhangra, Latin, and African music all assembled within one piece in those "narrow" electronica genres.  Meanwhile "even" Goa is very distinct from other types of trance and is instantly recognizable as Middle-Eastern (and thankfully NOT very Westernized)...it's not a "niche", it's a wide expression of culture.  Listen to the examples under http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide.

  Granted some of the sub-genres IE "Epic Trance" are often very shallow and, I agree, far too specific/limited...I believe we should stick to genres and not go so far as sub-genres in many of such cases in categorizing types of electronica.  Another funny sub-genre: "happy hardcore"...if I really wanted that, I'd be wouldn't be listening to music but instead... :-D

  The clear problem seems that those (above) genres are considered "underground"...and what's not underground IE "epic trance" (Ferry Corsten) or "euro dance" (Aqua anyone?) often tends to be what people think of when they think of electronica genres and their breadth. 

>"So, in a nutshell, I don't know WHAT to call music like what you
produced in "Dimension", except what you tell us. So next time, give it a
name yourself, and I'll call it what you like. Could it be any better
than that?"

   Well, I didn't start trying to fit it into any genre or chasing any trend, so I'm not surprised. :-D   When I compose...I don't ever try to aim for any genre, I just think of the mood I want, the level of energy I want...and go from there.  I don't think Jacky Ligon's music can really fit into any genre either, for example.
  So what to call it?  How about just plain-old "electronica" (which pretty much encompasses anything made with synthesizers)? I don't need a fancy name...I just need something that avoids comparing me to pop/dance. :-D

    You see, I really don't care about how much people know about electronica "sub-genres"...but rather that they can at least realize that just because something is electronica and has a strong beat does not magically make it pop/dance (we can thank cheesier-than-dirt pieces like "Flat Beat" by Mr. Oizo or songs like "Barbie Girl" by Aqua for this problem). :-P

>"In spite of that that Techno site said, I've been listening to
electronic music, and electronica, since the late 1960's. That is a hell
of a lot of changing labels to keep track of. Keep that in mind when
you give us a break."

   Again, I don't care about labels or genre correctness.  I have never demanded anyone put my song into a single genre.  Rather, again, I'm demanding that people recognize that electronica with strong beats does not = pop/dance.
  You all are demanding I call Debussy's work (including singing or not) "pieces" to avoid confusion.  Well, I am calling them pieces...and I'd appreciate the favor back of you all fairly calling my work "electronica" (all inclusive) and not "pop/dance" (which singles out just about everything with underground influences).  Fair enough?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

wordswordswordswords. All I needed to hear was "electronica". I'll happy to use that as a simple phrase to identify a general style of music, and then the recipient can tweak as need be. Nothing I said would indicate I have any remote dislike of electronica or electronic music, as my record collection, cd shelves, and hard drives can attest. Quite the contrary.

End of story, we can now officially move on.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> End of story, we can now officially move on.

Of course, for extra credit you could work on getting Michael to stop calling anything, even his own music, which contains no singing a "song". But I'll understand if you don't want to touch that one.

Gene,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>
> > End of story, we can now officially move on.
>
> Of course, for extra credit you could work on getting Michael to stop calling anything, even his own music, which contains no singing a "song". But I'll understand if you don't want to touch that one.

That isn't fair: he *has* stopped using the term wrongly, and it was, in large part, as much an honest mistake as calling someone's work "pop", without a good knowledge of where *they* are coming from.

Let's not make something more out of it than it is, or rather, was. We can all adjust our attitudes as well as our terminology.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> That isn't fair: he *has* stopped using the term wrongly, and it was, in large part, as much an honest mistake as calling someone's work "pop", without a good knowledge of where *they* are coming from.

He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Whether you consider the usage "wrong" or not, I suppose, depends on your degree of prescriptivism. There may be a genuine linguistic shift taking place, or it may merely be a temporary socialect. Time will tell, but until it does, some people are going to take it as a solecism. Judging by Carl's reaction, that's likely to make it prove annoying to some of those some people, especially the people who have stayed up all night for a week with sick kids.

> Let's not make something more out of it than it is, or rather, was. We can all adjust our attitudes as well as our terminology.

It's no big deal to me, but I think Michael deserves to know how the usage is going to be greeted in some quarters, and as of now I get the impression he thinks it's a specialized thing with classical music buffs. It's not, alas.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Put up or shut up - I think he has clearly stated his intent to avoid the incorrect attribution of a piece as a "song" when it isn't. If you've seen otherwise, in the last day or so, please quote it.

> It's no big deal to me, but I think Michael deserves to know how the usage is going to be greeted in some quarters, and as of now I get the impression he thinks it's a specialized thing with classical music buffs. It's not, alas.

And he has been, in spades, and probably more than he deserved. Any more than that is beating a dead horse for counter-productive reasons.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> > He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
>
> Put up or shut up - I think he has clearly stated his intent to avoid the incorrect attribution of a piece as a "song" when it isn't. If you've seen otherwise, in the last day or so, please quote it.

"I have never demanded anyone put my song into a single genre."

/makemicromusic/topicId_26736.html#26849

Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:02 am

Is that recent enough for you?

> And he has been, in spades, and probably more than he deserved. Any more than that is beating a dead horse for counter-productive reasons.

Talk about counter-productive, time-wasting, dead-horse-beating, obnoxiously stated demands! You deserve a special prize.

>"It's no big deal to me, but I think Michael deserves to know how the
usage is going to be greeted in some quarters, and as of now I get the
impression he thinks it's a specialized thing with classical music
buffs. It's not, alas."

    For crying out loud...I have STOPPED using the word "song" to describe non-lyrical music...where on earth did you get the impression I have kept any ideas about thinking the term is "specialized"?  Actions speak louder than what you "think" I say, and my actions lately (from beyond the time of that one Debussy "song" mistake) have been NOT using the word "song" and respecting the terminology.  By saying I'm not following through, you are talking BS.  If you said that to me in person...I'd push you to the side and against the wall: I'm NOT taking people flat out lying about my actions!!!
  

--- On Fri, 3/11/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: Definition of Pop...
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 12:12 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> That isn't fair: he *has* stopped using the term wrongly, and it was, in large part, as much an honest mistake as calling someone's work "pop", without a good knowledge of where *they* are coming from.

He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Whether you consider the usage "wrong" or not, I suppose, depends on your degree of prescriptivism. There may be a genuine linguistic shift taking place, or it may merely be a temporary socialect. Time will tell, but until it does, some people are going to take it as a solecism. Judging by Carl's reaction, that's likely to make it prove annoying to some of those some people, especially the people who have stayed up all night for a week with sick kids.

> Let's not make something more out of it than it is, or rather, was. We can all adjust our attitudes as well as our terminology.

It's no big deal to me, but I think Michael deserves to know how the usage is going to be greeted in some quarters, and as of now I get the impression he thinks it's a specialized thing with classical music buffs. It's not, alas.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Finally, someone is taking my several ACTIONS over my one-time old dead-horse mistake.  Thank you, Jon...and, of course, I will CONTINUE to use the terms piece of music and song correctly.

--- On Fri, 3/11/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

From: jonszanto <jszanto@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: Definition of Pop...
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:10 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Put up or shut up - I think he has clearly stated his intent to avoid the incorrect attribution of a piece as a "song" when it isn't. If you've seen otherwise, in the last day or so, please quote it.

> It's no big deal to me, but I think Michael deserves to know how the usage is going to be greeted in some quarters, and as of now I get the impression he thinks it's a specialized thing with classical music buffs. It's not, alas.

And he has been, in spades, and probably more than he deserved. Any more than that is beating a dead horse for counter-productive reasons.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   It was a slip of the tongue...  And, to be honest, it was describing my own piece, so I was not watching my usage as closely.  You take it as if I MEANT to do it though.  Bastard...  (yes, that level of dead-horse beating and insulting deserves the use of that word...I've had ENOUGH)!

--- On Fri, 3/11/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: Definition of Pop...
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 2:00 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

>

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:

> > He hasn't stopped or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

>

> Put up or shut up - I think he has clearly stated his intent to avoid the incorrect attribution of a piece as a "song" when it isn't. If you've seen otherwise, in the last day or so, please quote it.

"I have never demanded anyone put my song into a single genre."

/makemicromusic/topicId_26736.html#26849

Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:02 am

Is that recent enough for you?

> And he has been, in spades, and probably more than he deserved. Any more than that is beating a dead horse for counter-productive reasons.

Talk about counter-productive, time-wasting, dead-horse-beating, obnoxiously stated demands! You deserve a special prize.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    It was a slip of the tongue...  And, to be honest, it was describing my own piece, so I was not watching my usage as closely.  You take it as if I MEANT to do it though.  Bastard...

Sorry for trying to be kind and helpful, and attempting to spare you any future problems of this sort.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Sorry for trying to be kind and helpful, and attempting to spare you any future problems of this sort.

Maybe if you phrased it in a manner that seemed kind and helpful, it would have had it's intended effect. Really, Gene, you've been past this stuff for a long time now.

And I want my prize. :)

>"Sorry for trying to be kind and helpful, and attempting to spare you any future problems of this sort."

So when I type 20 or so messages and only use the term song wrongly once...you call me out in public and mention my "intent" to use it wrongly and argue with Jon about my intentions instead of taking even a second to send a message to me?
  I have serious doubts as to whether you were trying to spare me future problems.  If you see me make a mistake, please, first look and see if it's a constant mistake (say, more than half the time)...then decide if it's really an issue and, if you think it is, shoot me a personal e-mail and give me a fair chance to correct myself.  Had you done that I would have posted on list both where I called my instrumental a "song" and what I should have called it IE "piece of music" or "instrumental" or "track". 

   My real problem with you and others...is that you consistently argue about my intentions, talk about me without talking to me, and generally expect the worst from me.  Even if you do expect the worst from me or even think I'm a constant mistake maker...at least have the courtesy t mention via PM and give me a chance to personally correct any mistakes...before you start complaining incessantly about my "intentions".

--- On Fri, 3/11/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [MMM] Re: Definition of Pop...
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 2:43 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>

>    It was a slip of the tongue...  And, to be honest, it was describing my own piece, so I was not watching my usage as closely.  You take it as if I MEANT to do it though.  Bastard...

Sorry for trying to be kind and helpful, and attempting to spare you any future problems of this sort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Maybe if you phrased it in a manner that seemed kind and helpful, it would have had it's intended effect. Really, Gene, you've been past this stuff for a long time now.

Excuse me, Mr. Kind and Helpful, but you have been flaming Michael, while I have refrained. And I phrased it as delicately as I could see how. How, exactly, do you think I should have pointed out, diplomatically, that "song" means singing in a context wider than simply classical music, the point I thought Michael must have missed?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Sorry for trying to be kind and helpful, and attempting to spare you any future problems of this sort."
>
> So when I type 20 or so messages and only use the term song wrongly once...you call me out in public and mention my "intent" to use it wrongly and argue with Jon about my intentions instead of taking even a second to send a message to me?

I didn't want to directly address you lest you feel lectured to, picked on, and scolded. My mistake.

> I have serious doubts as to whether you were trying to spare me future problems.

Why?

>  If you see me make a mistake, please, first look and see if it's a constant mistake (say, more than half the time)...then decide if it's really an issue and, if you think it is, shoot me a personal e-mail and give me a fair chance to correct myself.

I know your email name but not your address, and in any case not everyone wants to be pestered in email.

Gene>"I didn't want to directly address you lest you feel lectured to, picked on, and scolded. My mistake. I know your email name but not your address, and in any case not everyone wants to be pestered in email."

   Ok, well...so long as you change the whole "public scolding" thing I'm not eager to start/hold/keep any long-term grudges.
   So hopefully this will solve a lot for a whole lot of people.  >>djtrancendance@...<< is the address. 

   Of course, that address is posted on the list and I get your messages (along with all list messages) automatically forwarded to me anyhow.  So next time you see something I say that just *has* to be addressed, please sent me a personal message and I'll do something positive about it...without these absurdly long threads of my defending myself in public.  I don't like defending myself in public over things people should be addressing with me in private any more than people like the "long winding defense e-mails" I write on list when I am being attacked in public (IE not much at all).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> So next time you see something I say that just *has* to be addressed, please sent me a personal message and I'll do something positive about it...

OK.