Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:49 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> "The amount of detail in the music, the intelligence of the counterpoint
> and infectiousness of the melodic shapes" makes it sound like Bach, which it
> really, really isn't. I wouldn't have thought twice about it if I'd heard it
> on my own without AKJ jumping up and down and pointing, so maybe I just
> don't get it.
>

I realize that there is there is this understandable tendency to hear the
word 'counterpoint', have a knee-jerk reaction, start foaming at the mouth
and expecting to hear Bachian neo-baroque gesturing, but really that's an
indefensible position. Counterpoint is a wide enough net, in my book. And
good counterpoint (what do you want me to say 'interesting confluence of
lines'???) is not entirely the sole domain of J.S. Bach and neo-Bach-isms,
either. I never thought I'd agree with Michael about much, but I will say
here: as creative composers and listeners, let's learn from, but also move
on from Bach, okay? So I refuse to not use the word "counterpoint" just
because conservative listeners insist that it means inverted canons at the
12th or 5-part fugues with augmentation.

And, Gene---I think it's fair to say your tastes aren't all that progressive
either, at least what I know of them. That I can recall, you've never seemed
to care much for anything that wasn't neo-common practice, or perhaps in the
mold of Bartok/Prokofieff and such, of one sort or another. So, yeah, maybe
you wouldn't get this in a million years. But since you have a nascent
interest, it seems, in Csound and problems of synthesis, maybe you can at
least appreciate someone's work on that level, which I think shows here
quite well.

I'd happily listen to anything in this general direction of electronic
composition that anyone thought was *better* than this....haven't heard it
yet, expect maybe from someone like Squarepusher, and it definitely hasn't
been approached, let alone surpassed, in these tuning list parts, from what
I've heard. (Maybe Chris Bailey's "Smurf" piece, though) So, those who sit
back and say 'eh', give me a clue, please.... ;)

AKJ

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

BTW, apparently, Elaine Walker (I was going to say 'our very own Elaine
Walker' but she's not really a tuning lister, is she?) did the voice on an
early game soundtrack designed by Eeben. You can check it out on her
website, scroll to the bottom, 'greenrunner':

http://www.ziaspace.com/_videos/

I don't think the music is nearly as good as the 'Salamander' tracks,
though....I'm interested in hearing how many of these tracks on Eeben's
webpage are as tight, b/c there are a lot of them. Keeping the same level of
quality for what looks like a gigantic release is an impressive feat indeed.

AKJ

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Gene wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.cncd.fi/aeeben/
>
> >"The amount of detail in the music, the intelligence of the
> >counterpoint and infectiousness of the melodic shapes" makes it sound
> >like Bach, which it really, really isn't. I wouldn't have thought
> >twice about it if I'd heard it on my own without AKJ jumping up and
> >down and pointing, so maybe I just don't get it.
>
> I can say that it's got some variety. One of the tracks sounded
> like Subotnick, one was straight-ahead chiptune, and another
> techno/trance. And there's some care going into the production
> on all of them. -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Mike,

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'd happily listen to anything in this general direction of electronic
> > composition that anyone thought was *better* than this....haven't heard
> it
> > yet, expect maybe from someone like Squarepusher, and it definitely
> hasn't
> > been approached, let alone surpassed, in these tuning list parts, from
> what
> > I've heard. (Maybe Chris Bailey's "Smurf" piece, though) So, those who
> sit
> > back and say 'eh', give me a clue, please.... ;)
>
> What are you looking for, exactly? Classical counterpoint type stuff
> meets electronic?

I'm refusing to use that word now---counterpoint---it's loaded with crappy
baggage on this list. Short answer--I'm looking for anything in this
stylistic universe that anyone thinks is as good or better than this.

> Can't say I've heard much of it before.
>
> Props for the Squarepusher reference, he's awesome though.
>
>
Squarepusher is great stuff.

<rant>
My friend hates the words "awesome" as used everywhere these days, and he
has infected me with the same distaste---it's become like the "like"
syndrome of the Valley Girls in the 80's ---everything nowadays is
"awesome", so it loses all meaning.

The size of the Milky Way galaxy, the Sistine Chapel of Michelangelo---those
are "awesome"...Squarepusher just rocks. :-)
</rant>

AKJ

> -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > What are you looking for, exactly? Classical counterpoint type stuff
> > meets electronic?
>
> I'm refusing to use that word now---counterpoint---it's loaded with crappy
> baggage on this list. Short answer--I'm looking for anything in this
> stylistic universe that anyone thinks is as good or better than this.

Hm. I wasn't aware that this stylistic universe existed before today.

> Squarepusher is great stuff.
>
> <rant>
> My friend hates the words "awesome" as used everywhere these days, and he
> has infected me with the same distaste---it's become like the "like"
> syndrome of the Valley Girls in the 80's ---everything nowadays is
> "awesome", so it loses all meaning.
>
> The size of the Milky Way galaxy, the Sistine Chapel of Michelangelo---those
> are "awesome"...Squarepusher just rocks. :-)
> </rant>

Alright. I shall engage in no further pleasantries of my vernacular on
this forum.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Αλέξανδρος Παπαδόπουλος <alexandros.p.77@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me>And admittedly, in this case, the sound quality DOES matter more
than composition because of the focus on atmospheres....the composition,
mind you, is good, but the imagination behind the abstract evolving
backgrounds is awe-inspiring.

Gene>"I was thinking of it as music and rating it as a composition, which is
certainly what Aaron claimed was of interest in it. I'm not interested
in abstractly evolving backgrounds, which apparently makes me a terrible
square."

You know what...I wouldn't say you're terribly swear because I can definitely relate. 98% of the time I am the sort of reviewer who ranks composition far above production: look at my old reviews on Traxinspace and you'll see that. Usually to me, production quality just makes music sound more professional and clear, rather than make the moods more interesting. Same even goes with textures...often Ambient music piles on mammoth textures, but they just seem to randomly slip past each other rather than build into coherently moody structures. So someone's music sounds like it was recorded in a $100K studio or the sounds seem like they were professionally designed for a major movie...so what?

"Sun Salamander" is one of those very rare songs where the production seems to reflect fresh imagination rather than the usual "my studio is better than yours and I tweaked more knobs than you!" The little blips actually layer up in such a way they build pseudo-harmonics that act as extra tones, the way the instruments are arranged actually provides rhythm/momentum despite there being no drums. Don't know how else to describe it just..incredibly imaginative. All this despite the fact the whole thing is basically spun out of a ho-hum 5-chord progression (which I'm betting struck you as nothing special either)...but the textures are done in such a way that...to me...they poke on extra harmonics and make the chords morph into something evolving mood-wise despite also "staying the same" on the compositional surface.

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 8:51 AM

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

>And admittedly, in this case, the sound quality DOES matter more than composition because of the focus on atmospheres....the composition, mind you, is good, but the imagination behind the abstract evolving backgrounds is awe-inspiring.

I was thinking of it as music and rating it as a composition, which is certainly what Aaron claimed was of interest in it. I'm not interested in abstractly evolving backgrounds, which apparently makes me a terrible square.

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:51 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >And admittedly, in this case, the sound quality DOES matter more than
> composition because of the focus on atmospheres....the composition, mind
> you, is good, but the imagination behind the abstract evolving backgrounds
> is awe-inspiring.
>
>
What is an 'atmosphere', precisely? I don't know what you're talking about.
Or I only sorta half half half know. It's a pretty un-pinnable concept when
you really look at it.

> I was thinking of it as music and rating it as a composition, which is
> certainly what Aaron claimed was of interest in it.

I dunno--I listen to 'music' which is 'organized sound of some sort coming
at my ears', and if I like it, it sounds good, and tickles my fancy, I
think, "man that sounds good, I think it must be good." This whole
preconception that it should have a checklist of certain technical surface
or stylistic features before I even consider it worthy, is, in my view,
extremely silly.

These categories you guys are coming up with to separate different types of
experiences ("composition" = "the notes, rhythms, harmonies,
counterpoint---we must have that a la Bach or Schoenberg or R. Strauss,
Glenn Gould says so, otherwise it sucks", "atmospheres="timbre backgrounds,
washes, filter sweeps, spectral morphs") so that you make sure you don't
enjoy the wrong type of experience -- lest you not be your dependable
box-like selves -- are completely bogus and artificial to me. Completely.

To me, I don't think an experience is music until it is fully shaped as
sound and comes to my ear. If it's delicious, I give it a thumbs up, if not,
I say 'eh' or 'blech' and move on.

Of course, one can admire Bach's fugues for instance (i.e. Gene's
"composition" referent) on paper; they have beauty and ingenuity all their
own as "Augen-Musik", but that' not the music. The music is the sonic
experience. I'm not moved by un-realized time-slotted MIDI files, sorry. I
can be moved by a score I see, but only to the degree I hear it in my head.
Usually, I enjoy the memory of the sound when I peruse a score.

> I'm not interested in abstractly evolving backgrounds, which apparently
> makes me a terrible square.
>

I was thinking you were a terrible parallelogram. Or maybe a rhombus. yeah
that's it---you're a terrible rhombus. ;)

In all seriousness, assuming you are talking about ambient-type music and
such, it does require letting go of a lot of (I think unhelpful and frankly,
crappy) cultural baggage that is typically groomed by classical conservatory
style snootiness, and having fresh childlike ears. I'm the first to defend
the value of classical music, having been weened on it, and lived in that
world most of my life. I'm also the first to acknowledge the unbelievably
conservative box many classical music lovers put themselves in.

I also decry the divisions from the other end---e.g. Michael not finding
much of value in Bach for instance, and the whole "we must make micro music
have a beat so it can be swallowed by the masses" thing is *also*
lamentable. I think music is already being dumbed down to the point of
absurdity---we don't need to help it. Plenty of music is incredible that
doesn't have drums. I cannot imagine cosmically or spiritually deep music
having synthetic beats and being all that cosmic and spiritual. And dammit,
I need those kinds of musical experiences---where pulse and time stop, and
we are in touch with something that suggests more of an eternal experience.

C'mon folks, when something is quality, it's simply quality. Yes?

AKJ

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

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"What is an 'atmosphere', precisely? I don't know what you're talking about.

Or I only sorta half half half know. It's a pretty un-pinnable concept when

you really look at it."

When a background becomes so strong it makes extra tones/harmonics pop up in your head...almost like subliminal melodies. That kind of effect, I find, is very hard to come by...Future Sound of London seems to nail it, occasionally.

> I was thinking of it as music and rating it as a composition, which is

> certainly what Aaron claimed was of interest in it.

Ugh I'm such a klutz...I meant Gene not Aaron. Anyhow... :-P

>"so that you make sure you don't enjoy the wrong type of experience -- lest you not be your dependable box-like selves -- are completely bogus and artificial to me. Completely."

I don't believe in boxing things in IE "I expect X experience from Y type of music". Rather there are two kind of "motifs": atmospheric (described above) and compositional. Sometimes compositional notes played at really low volume end up being interpreted as "atmospheric". It all ends up summing up as melodies/moods I hear in a piece... I don't think atmopheric method "sucks"...but rather that very few composers can make it strong enough to function as it's own sort of motif/melody rather than just decoration.

>"I also decry the divisions from the other end---e.g. Michael not finding much of value in Bach for instance, and the whole "we must make micro music have a beat so it can be swallowed by the masses" thing is *also* lamentable. "

I'm not going to take back the fact Bach does not work for me. But I never had or will say microtonal music must have a beat to work but, rather, something a lot more similar to what you said IE "I'm also the first to acknowledge the unbelievably conservative box many classical music lovers put themselves in." Music with a beat is but one option, out of MANY GOOD OPINIONS beside the proverbial "conservative box".

>"Plenty of music is incredible that doesn't have drums."

Funny you say that because the "Sun Salamander" song I commented on as great virtually has no drums. :-P If you're going to pigeonhole my tastes, I guess you could say I gravitate toward music with quickly flowing energy...drums are one way to get this...out of many other equally good ways. In fact, although I make music with drums, one of the coolest things to do, I've found...is get rhythmic energy and momentum going with as few of them as possible. I admire to death the works of those people who can get people dancing without drums...boy does that take clever composition...

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

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

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

> I dunno--I listen to 'music' which is 'organized sound of some sort coming
> at my ears', and if I like it, it sounds good, and tickles my fancy, I
> think, "man that sounds good, I think it must be good." This whole
> preconception that it should have a checklist of certain technical surface
> or stylistic features before I even consider it worthy, is, in my view,
> extremely silly.

I have no checklist. I do want what I listen to to have enough content to hold my interest.

> I was thinking you were a terrible parallelogram. Or maybe a rhombus. yeah
> that's it---you're a terrible rhombus. ;)

There's a rhombus amomb us?

> In all seriousness, assuming you are talking about ambient-type music and
> such, it does require letting go of a lot of (I think unhelpful and frankly,
> crappy) cultural baggage that is typically groomed by classical conservatory
> style snootiness, and having fresh childlike ears.

What if I just plain don't like snorefests? I am not a fan of minimalism either.

> I think music is already being dumbed down to the point of
> absurdity---we don't need to help it.

And this stuff in some ways was pretty dumbed down. It wasn't awful, but I didn't hear much that would make me sit up in my chair.

> C'mon folks, when something is quality, it's simply quality. Yes?

And I reserve the right to decide what I like and on what basis. I want SOMETHING THERE, dammit. Where's the damned beef?

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Agreed, Chris' last rock piece, about deja-vu, was very amusing. I liked both they are just...quite different.

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [MMM] mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:14 PM

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

> Funny you say that because the "Sun Salamander" song I commented on as great virtually has no drums. :-P

On the other hand Chris just posted a rockish sort of thing with beats and stuff, not much traditional development which I found more engaging. Something about it gave me more to listen to, I won't try to say what lest Aaron wax wroth.

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:06 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I dunno--I listen to 'music' which is 'organized sound of some sort
> coming
> > at my ears', and if I like it, it sounds good, and tickles my fancy, I
> > think, "man that sounds good, I think it must be good." This whole
> > preconception that it should have a checklist of certain technical
> surface
> > or stylistic features before I even consider it worthy, is, in my view,
> > extremely silly.
>
> I have no checklist. I do want what I listen to to have enough content to
> hold my interest.
>
>
What's "content"? Lots and lots of notes and/or harmonic changes per second,
with flat dynamics and neutral "black and whitish" timbres? Information
overload bordering on white noise? Elliot Carter?

> I was thinking you were a terrible parallelogram. Or maybe a rhombus. yeah
> > that's it---you're a terrible rhombus. ;)
>
> There's a rhombus amomb us?
>
> > In all seriousness, assuming you are talking about ambient-type music and
> > such, it does require letting go of a lot of (I think unhelpful and
> frankly,
> > crappy) cultural baggage that is typically groomed by classical
> conservatory
> > style snootiness, and having fresh childlike ears.
>
> What if I just plain don't like snorefests? I am not a fan of minimalism
> either.
>

This music is *hardly* a snorefest, to me. I haven't heard anything this
interesting in a *long* time. Well, okay, I rediscovered Rautavaara's choral
music, and some of Henk Bading's choral stuff, both of which were
revelatory, recently, but other than that? Not much that grabbed me as this
did.

Aleksi Eeben obviously thinks about what he does, down to the last
millimeter. I admire that in any musical artist. Every parameter is attended
to: timbre, rhythm, melody, harmony, production sonics. Above all, a sense
of purpose, wit and intelligence is ever-present. Nothing is lazy or tossed
off about this work. It's polished from top to bottom.

> > I think music is already being dumbed down to the point of
> > absurdity---we don't need to help it.
>
> And this stuff in some ways was pretty dumbed down.

Jaaaayyysus. Ok, Gene. Whatever.....

> It wasn't awful, but I didn't hear much that would make me sit up in my
> chair.
>
>
We are from different planets, I guess. Waaaay different.

> C'mon folks, when something is quality, it's simply quality. Yes?
>
> And I reserve the right to decide what I like and on what basis. I want
> SOMETHING THERE, dammit. Where's the damned beef?
>
>
No beef, just utter amazement.

Hmmm. I heard in the 'Salamander' pieces: originality, variety, craft, wit,
color, technical wizardry, emotion, sonic dazzle, rhythmic inventiveness.

So I guess by 'SOMETHING' you mean the ability to do what, exactly? Ignore
all the parameters that make any music interesting to 99% of the population?

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

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I'll wade in here just a bit.

Thanks Gene for liking.... I think the CT-Scan piece - the development was
done by addition of parts more or less though the percussion had some large
scale development. The guitar parts had a bit of development - but yes,
nothing like a classical piece..

Michael - deja vu? Then I'd think you mean 12 et piece "My Life is a Memory"
or alternate title "My Whole Life"? remastered from 4-track cassette?

The last piece I released before CT-Scan was Burrs which is a 12 equal piece
in 7/8 time.

Chris

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Agreed, Chris' last rock piece, about deja-vu, was very amusing. I liked
> both they are just...quite different.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/5/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:14 PM
>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Funny you say that because the "Sun Salamander" song I commented on as
> great virtually has no drums. :-P
>
> On the other hand Chris just posted a rockish sort of thing with beats and
> stuff, not much traditional development which I found more engaging.
> Something about it gave me more to listen to, I won't try to say what lest
> Aaron wax wroth.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

My bad, you're right, I was talking about "Life is a Memory"...I missed your CT-scan song posting. So I'll check that one out as well... :-D

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 1:51 PM
> I'll wade in here just a bit.
>
> Thanks Gene for liking.... I think the CT-Scan piece - the
> development was
> done by addition of parts more or less though the
> percussion had some large
> scale development. The guitar parts had a bit of
> development - but yes,
> nothing like a classical piece..
>
> Michael - deja vu? Then I'd think you mean 12 et piece "My
> Life is a Memory"
> or alternate title "My Whole Life"? remastered from 4-track
> cassette?
>
> The last piece I released before CT-Scan was Burrs which is
> a 12 equal piece
> in 7/8 time.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Agreed, Chris' last rock piece, about deja-vu, was
> very amusing. I liked
> > both they are just...quite different.
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 4/5/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] mind-blowingly good electronic
> (video-gamish) music
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 12:14 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Funny you say that because the "Sun
> Salamander" song I commented on as
> > great virtually has no drums. :-P
> >
> > On the other hand Chris just posted a rockish sort of
> thing with beats and
> > stuff, not much traditional development which I found
> more engaging.
> > Something about it gave me more to listen to, I won't
> try to say what lest
> > Aaron wax wroth.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> MakeMicroMusic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
> I realize that there is there is this understandable tendency to
> hear the
> word 'counterpoint', have a knee-jerk reaction, start foaming at
> the mouth
> and expecting to hear Bachian neo-baroque gesturing, but really
> that's an
> indefensible position. Counterpoint is a wide enough net, in my
> book. And
> good counterpoint (what do you want me to say 'interesting
> confluence of
> lines'???) is not entirely the sole domain of J.S. Bach and neo-
> Bach-isms,
> either. I never thought I'd agree with Michael about much, but I
> will say
> here: as creative composers and listeners, let's learn from, but
> also move
> on from Bach, okay? So I refuse to not use the word "counterpoint"
> just
> because conservative listeners insist that it means inverted canons
> at the
> 12th or 5-part fugues with augmentation.
>

Maybe this wider kind of "counterpoint" is more or less part of
arrangement, not composition itself, and can be easily created during
recording process just by adding new instruments which play different
roles in arrangement (bass, rhythmic chord accompaniment, sustained
chords, phrases, fill-ins, riffs, countermelody under the main
melody, main melody, high countermelody...)

I have met also terms like "voicing", "layering", "stratophony"...
last one maybe should be kept for such compositions where whole music
structures layer.

Daniel Forro

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
> Of course, one can admire Bach's fugues for instance (i.e. Gene's
> "composition" referent) on paper; they have beauty and ingenuity
> all their
> own as "Augen-Musik", but that' not the music. The music is the sonic
> experience.

I can't quite agree. Music is a communication language, and this
doesn't depend on the sound or concrete timbre. Good music will
always have the same impact independent from its arrangement. It can
sound differently but we can feel the same emotions from it. That's
the reason why there's a lot of different arrangements of many pieces
of classical music (or rock, jazz, pop...) and they work. There's a
lot of piano reductions or 4hand piano reductions of many classical
works, even orchestral symphonies, and it works. That means there's
something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...

And as you wrote some people can read music just from the score and
listen to it this way. They don't need sound. (count me as well)

Timbre started to be more important after WWW II, with styles like
electronic music, musique concrete, timbre music, aleatoric music...
So much that the other music parameters (melody, harmony,
counterpoint, rhythm...) disappeared in extreme cases. Also lot of
contemporary electronic music are just soundscapes fully dependent on
used sounds. It's impossible to transfer such music to different
colors or even to acoustic instruments.

Daniel Forro

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Daniel Forró <dan.for@tiscali.cz> wrote:

>
> On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Of course, one can admire Bach's fugues for instance (i.e. Gene's
> > "composition" referent) on paper; they have beauty and ingenuity
> > all their
> > own as "Augen-Musik", but that' not the music. The music is the sonic
> > experience.
>
> I can't quite agree. Music is a communication language, and this
> doesn't depend on the sound or concrete timbre. Good music will
> always have the same impact independent from its arrangement.

Not true.

> It can
> sound differently but we can feel the same emotions from it.

Not true.

It's not even true that we can feel the same emotions from a piece with
different performers on the same instrument. How can what you say here
possibly be true, then?

> That's
> the reason why there's a lot of different arrangements of many pieces
> of classical music (or rock, jazz, pop...) and they work.

Sometimes.

> There's a
> lot of piano reductions or 4hand piano reductions of many classical
> works, even orchestral symphonies, and it works.

Sometimes.

But it's not a substitute for the actual orchestral experience, is it? It's
an arrangement.

How would you feel about showing up to a symphony concert expecting
Shostakovich 4 only to find you were hearing a multi-piano arrangement
instead. If you've ever heard that piece live, as I have, you'd know you be
heartbroken.

By Gene's logic, and now, seemingly, your logic, Shostakovich 4 sucks
because it depends to much on the wonderful colors he evokes with orchestral
mastery. It ought to be as astounding in a 4-hand piano arrangement.

Or, playing a piano reduction of a 4-part Byrd mass is the "same thing" as
hearing a masterful English choir perform it in a glorious cathedral
setting.

Utter and complete nonsense.

That means there's
> something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...
>
>
Music by definition is sound, and meaning is in the ears of the listener, so
this can't be true.

> And as you wrote some people can read music just from the score and
> listen to it this way. They don't need sound. (count me as well)
>
>
Hearing music in your head is delightful, but it's not the same as actually
hearing it, I can't agree. That's like saying that sexual fantasies are like
having real sex. That's like saying Beethoven wasn't frustrated that he was
deaf.

Again, complete and utter nonsense.

Timbre started to be more important after WWW II, with styles like
> electronic music, musique concrete, timbre music, aleatoric music...
>

Okay, now you're getting ridiculous.

I'm sure Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius, Brahms, Tschaikovsky, etc. etc.
would verily disagree with such bold, but ultimately not well thought-out
pronouncements.

You're a smart guy, you know this is false.

So much that the other music parameters (melody, harmony,
> counterpoint, rhythm...) disappeared in extreme cases.

Yes, and?

> Also lot of
> contemporary electronic music are just soundscapes fully dependent on
> used sounds.

"just soundscapes" is a very pejorative term don't you think? The effect of
any music is dependent on the used sounds. Listening to Bach done by Wendy
Carlos on a Moog is a different experience than done by Trevor Pinnock on a
harpsichord, yes?

I don't think we should judge any music on such concepts, if that is indeed
what you are doing...I don't think you are, but I'm not quite sure...

It's impossible to transfer such music to different
> colors or even to acoustic instruments.

And, what, therefore it's inferior? Pshaw!

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]

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

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

> By Gene's logic, and now, seemingly, your logic, Shostakovich 4 sucks
> because it depends to much on the wonderful colors he evokes with orchestral
> mastery. It ought to be as astounding in a 4-hand piano arrangement.

I've somehow forgotten when I said Shostakovich sucked. By my logic, he's good because there's something there for mind and ears to latch onto. He's got the beef. I don't know how Symphony 4 would work for 4-hand piano; I've only heard a few symphonies that way, and none by Shostakovich, but I'd be willing to give it a listen because I think it's likely there would be something worth listening to.

> Or, playing a piano reduction of a 4-part Byrd mass is the "same thing" as
> hearing a masterful English choir perform it in a glorious cathedral
> setting.

That's a seriously deranged comparison on the basis of tuning alone.

> That's like saying Beethoven wasn't frustrated that he was
> deaf.

I think going deaf made him a better composer.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:31 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > By Gene's logic, and now, seemingly, your logic, Shostakovich 4 sucks
> > because it depends to much on the wonderful colors he evokes with
> orchestral
> > mastery. It ought to be as astounding in a 4-hand piano arrangement.
>
> I've somehow forgotten when I said Shostakovich sucked. By my logic, he's
> good because there's something there for mind and ears to latch onto. He's
> got the beef. I don't know how Symphony 4 would work for 4-hand piano; I've
> only heard a few symphonies that way, and none by Shostakovich, but I'd be
> willing to give it a listen because I think it's likely there would be
> something worth listening to.
>

"Worth listening to" and the "same" are different concepts. You seem to be
saying that whatever makes it "music" is in the piano 4-hand arrangement of
an orchestral piece, for example. I would say that's an incomplete
assessment.

>
> > Or, playing a piano reduction of a 4-part Byrd mass is the "same thing"
> as
> > hearing a masterful English choir perform it in a glorious cathedral
> > setting.
>
> That's a seriously deranged comparison on the basis of tuning alone.
>
>
Yes, it is. But let's talk about the timbre of a choir, while we are at it.

> > That's like saying Beethoven wasn't frustrated that he was
> > deaf.
>
> I think going deaf made him a better composer.
>
>
No denying that his imagination probably took flight in unforeseen ways, but
to say he didn't care about timbre is another story altogether. This is an
unprovable assumption based on faith, and based on romantic notions of his
inner mental life which may or may not really have played into his mature
voice as a creative genius.

AKJ

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

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

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

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

> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Daniel ForrÃ³ <dan.for@...> wrote:

> That means there's
> > something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...
> >
> Music by definition is sound, and meaning is in the ears of the
> listener, so this can't be true.

I don't think horses, for example, hear music. They hear the sounds
but they don't hear the movement of melodies and harmonies or the
virtual causality of this voice "wanting" to move to that note and so
on. We can hear birdsong as music but I doubt birds intentionally
make music.

I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant under
arrangements. Even the metaphysics may be different: classical music
takes interest in the piece itself as intended by the composer in the
score, the performance is central in jazz and arguably the thing of
interest in rock is the record.

Kalle

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Daniel ForrÃ³ <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> > That means there's
> > > something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...
> > >
> > Music by definition is sound, and meaning is in the ears of the
> > listener, so this can't be true.
>
> I don't think horses, for example, hear music.

I was assuming Gene was a human being, not a horse!

> They hear the sounds
> but they don't hear the movement of melodies and harmonies or the
> virtual causality of this voice "wanting" to move to that note and so
> on. We can hear birdsong as music but I doubt birds intentionally
> make music.
>
> I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant under
> arrangements.

Again, that's like saying hearing a piece in its original orchestral form is
the same as hearing a piano arrangement. I refute that. Sure, certain
elements are invariant, but that's why we distinguish between arrangements
and original orchestrations.

> Even the metaphysics may be different: classical music
> takes interest in the piece itself as intended by the composer in the
> score, the performance is central in jazz and arguably the thing of
> interest in rock is the record.
>
>
I see your point in this argument, and I would say that electronic timbres
come to the for in popular music, making the recorded effects and so forth
integral to the overall composition, but when you think about it, the same
thing is happening on a different scale in classical music: so and so's
interpretation of such and such a piece is widely regarded as a measuring
stick in terms of excitement and authenticity, etc. Besides which, depending
on the composer, there may be much expressive detail left to understood
tradition, and to the interpreter's sensitivity. Mahler for instance wrote
highly detailed expressive indications, but still claimed that 90% of what
made his music what it was was *not* in the score!!! Think about that!!!

I had a vivid experience of seeing my wife "not get" Sibelius 2 under
Esa-Pekka Salonen's rather dull and mediocre interpretation, but really get
excited by an old Sir John Barbirolli recording of the same piece (which
also put to lie the idea that a composer's countrymen are always their best
interpreters)....makes one realize *vividly* how important the actual
interpretation that bring these pieces to life is in forming an emotional
bond w/the piece. In my book, the experiences of two different recordings or
interpretations of the "same" piece may be so different in what gets
communicated that one might go so far as saying they aren't actually the
same piece *in actuality*...meaning, we know and like or dislike a piece
always based on the sonic actuality.

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

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

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Daniel ForrÃÂ³ <dan.for@> wrote:
> >
> > > That means there's
> > > > something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...
> > > >
> > > Music by definition is sound, and meaning is in the ears of the
> > > listener, so this can't be true.
> >
> > I don't think horses, for example, hear music.
>
>
> I was assuming Gene was a human being, not a horse!

?? I was just defending Daniel's claim that "there is something more
in music than "just" the sound, timbre..."

> > They hear the sounds
> > but they don't hear the movement of melodies and harmonies or the
> > virtual causality of this voice "wanting" to move to that note and so
> > on. We can hear birdsong as music but I doubt birds intentionally
> > make music.
> >
> > I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant under
> > arrangements.
>
>
> Again, that's like saying hearing a piece in its original orchestral form is
> the same as hearing a piano arrangement. I refute that. Sure, certain
> elements are invariant, but that's why we distinguish between arrangements
> and original orchestrations.

But by "I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant
under arrangements." I'm saying that some pieces are more tolerant of
alternative instrumentations and arrangements while at the other
extreme some are essentially identical with a one-off performance or
a record and cannot even be "covered".

Kalle

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Daniel ForrÃƒÂ³ <dan.for@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That means there's
> > > > > something more in music than "just" the sound, timbre...
> > > > >
> > > > Music by definition is sound, and meaning is in the ears of the
> > > > listener, so this can't be true.
> > >
> > > I don't think horses, for example, hear music.
> >
> >
> > I was assuming Gene was a human being, not a horse!
>
> ?? I was just defending Daniel's claim that "there is something more
> in music than "just" the sound, timbre..."
>

If by that you mean a conscious listener must be present to parse the sounds
as 'music', I agree, but that was never in dispute. :)

>
>
> > They hear the sounds
> > > but they don't hear the movement of melodies and harmonies or the
> > > virtual causality of this voice "wanting" to move to that note and so
> > > on. We can hear birdsong as music but I doubt birds intentionally
> > > make music.
> > >
> > > I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant under
> > > arrangements.
> >
> >
> > Again, that's like saying hearing a piece in its original orchestral form
> is
> > the same as hearing a piano arrangement. I refute that. Sure, certain
> > elements are invariant, but that's why we distinguish between
> arrangements
> > and original orchestrations.
>
> But by "I'd say different pieces of music are more or less invariant
> under arrangements." I'm saying that some pieces are more tolerant of
> alternative instrumentations and arrangements while at the other
> extreme some are essentially identical with a one-off performance or
> a record and cannot even be "covered".

I suppose that's true. It's most true in the case of pre-recorded electronic
music, and I suppose that was the original point of Daniel's argument.

My reaction was against those who would claim timbre to be unimportant for
most cases.
But I guess that's the philosophy of certain composers.

With choral music of the Renaissance, I would agree timbre not to be
important in that domain, b/c it's about the structure and
harmonic/contrapuntal procedures almost entirely (leaving aside word
painting).

I would say that if you're doing electronic music and don't make conscious
choices about your timbres, something is going to run afoul and
suck....unless you've decided to be a sine-wave composer, or limit your
domain in similar ways (and that's not a problem if it's done well---look at
Asteroid Power-up as an example...or you could be concentrating on extremely
low-fi or retro sounds, like the whole chiptune movement)

It's pretty hard to not enjoy the purity of sine waves for me. :)

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

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

mind-blowingly good electronic (video-gamish) music

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Αλέξανδρος Παπαδόπουλος <alexandros.p.77@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>