Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Sustained Interest and Perfection [Uplifting Energy]

Jacky:

> What are the attributes of any music you love, that repeatedly
> makes you seek it out through the years?

> Is it at all important to contemplate what qualities may we
> observe, and perhaps adopt to our own purposes, that may help
> our own music endure repeated listenings?

You and your impossible questions!

Why is the sky blue?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Though you may be on to something! Say, if we could just
figure this out and quantify it then we could make an
algorithm to write beautiful music and then we could all
go home and stop working ourselves to death trying to be
artists -- we'll replace all the artists with computers,
and then we'll have more time to watch wrassling matches
on TV. :-\

OK but actually, you know, the Greeks I think were the
only ones that I'm aware of who came up with anything at
all that could be helpful here. Their theory of art and
architecture, which I presume extended to music as well
did have some useful tips. And from these tips I think we
can actually formulate a theory of WHAT TO DO TO MAKE
MUSIC THAT SUCKS. Once we have completely answered this
question in every possible way (which I am **strongly**
advocating we try), then whatever is left is THE ANSWER TO
JACKY'S QUESTION. See, it's like the prime numbers -- take
away every single possible pattern annd what is left is
the prime numbers. That's the *only* way to define them!
By making a list of what they are not!! There's lots of
difficult -- say impossible -- questions for which this
is the only approach you can take.

OK, getting back to the clever and insightful Greeks:

1) Have repetition, but don't make it exact.
2) Have symmetry, but don't make it perfect.
3) Model things on patterns found in nature:
a) Use the golden ratio.

OK, so #1 is the one I like today. Have you ever heard
a techno track where the first two measures are
the most beautiful thing and you are thinking: Wow!
And then the next 1000 measures are the exact same
loop played back with no variation whatsoever and
you fling the CD out the window, screaming and
then you fall on the floor, writhing about in anger
and frustration? Yeah, you know it! Exact repetition
SUCKS BIG TIME.

So you've got a sequencer and you say hey this
composition stuff is no big deal -- I'll just
copy this measure a million times and then
improvise on top of it!

Yeah, I've done that and sure it is fun. But,
you know it ain't no good since it drives people
nuts. So if you do use that method, at least do
something else with it like:

1. Go in an' make little changes to every one
of the repeated measures so they aren't all
the same.

2. Once you got a certain amount of stuff going on,
toss out the original ostinato track.

3. Rerecord the pattern track in real time so
that there are variations.

4. Don't make those copies to begin with, but
thorough-compose everything.

"Don't make it perfect":

1. Please do not quantize everything. Kindly
let it breath.
2. Stay away from small exactly just ratios.
3. Never ever ever ever use a 1200.00000 cent octave.
They are not found in nature!!!!!
4. What is with every velocity on this entire
track is 64?? And why is every note exactly
384 ticks long?? If you are doing this you
do not know what you are doing!

Back to "no exact copies":

Be _real_ careful if using digital instruments, or
particularly sampling. Do *something* to break up the
monotony. Use some FM or PWM or physical modelling. Stay
away from those sounds that just rapidly converge upon a
completely unnatural phase-locked integer harmonic sustain
loop. (That means most of the synths and sound cards out
there, by the way.) Or just use some acoustic instruments.
And don't use a drum machine if you can avoid it. If you
can't get 'real' drums, record your stapler, your
scissors, the banging of a can of coffee or a tin of
ship's biscuits, sticks knocked together, rocks, flower
pots, fingernail clippings transposed down 4 octaves,
frogs, terapins... percussion is everywhere!

Dan't stick all your instruments in the middle
of the speakers and leave them there. Please!!
No real instruments stay in the exact same place.
Even seated orchestra members fidget and shift
about, changing the sound subtlely.

Now that I am thinking about it, the albums that
I end up really listening to over and over always
have lots of little secrets -- little sounds and
touches and subtleties that I never noticed before
that after listening to them the 1000th time I notice
for the first time. It's a wonderful feeling finding
some interesting little detail hidden in the mix.
As an example, I'll mention all of the Beatles
albums from Sgt. Pepper onwards.

It's like when you have been driving your car for
ten years and one day you look down and you say,
"Hey, what's this switch??"

It's like when you walk past a vacant lot every
day for two years and then one day the vacant lot
is no longer there and in its place is a 100 year
old building that is surrounded with overgrown
bushes and vines and you know that you have shifted
into a parallel universe. Or when you go to the
supermarket and say "Don't you have any of those
blue grapefruits?" and they say "There is no
such thing! Grapefruits are pink!" And you
say "Huh? Since when?"

I could go on with these examples but I'll stop.
I do think that cataloguing these things is
a great idea and lots of fun!

- Jeff

I wonder what the what the Greeks would say about drum machines and sequencers.

>From: "J Scott" <xjscott@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tuning] Sustained Interest and Perfection [Uplifting Energy]
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:29:24 -0500
>
>Jacky:
>
> > What are the attributes of any music you love, that repeatedly
> > makes you seek it out through the years?
>
> > Is it at all important to contemplate what qualities may we
> > observe, and perhaps adopt to our own purposes, that may help
> > our own music endure repeated listenings?
>
>You and your impossible questions!
>
>Why is the sky blue?
>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
>Though you may be on to something! Say, if we could just
>figure this out and quantify it then we could make an
>algorithm to write beautiful music and then we could all
>go home and stop working ourselves to death trying to be
>artists -- we'll replace all the artists with computers,
>and then we'll have more time to watch wrassling matches
>on TV. :-\
>
>OK but actually, you know, the Greeks I think were the
>only ones that I'm aware of who came up with anything at
>all that could be helpful here. Their theory of art and
>architecture, which I presume extended to music as well
>did have some useful tips. And from these tips I think we
>can actually formulate a theory of WHAT TO DO TO MAKE
>MUSIC THAT SUCKS. Once we have completely answered this
>question in every possible way (which I am **strongly**
>advocating we try), then whatever is left is THE ANSWER TO
>JACKY'S QUESTION. See, it's like the prime numbers -- take
>away every single possible pattern annd what is left is
>the prime numbers. That's the *only* way to define them!
>By making a list of what they are not!! There's lots of
>difficult -- say impossible -- questions for which this
>is the only approach you can take.
>
>OK, getting back to the clever and insightful Greeks:
>
>1) Have repetition, but don't make it exact.
>2) Have symmetry, but don't make it perfect.
>3) Model things on patterns found in nature:
> a) Use the golden ratio.
>
>OK, so #1 is the one I like today. Have you ever heard
>a techno track where the first two measures are
>the most beautiful thing and you are thinking: Wow!
>And then the next 1000 measures are the exact same
>loop played back with no variation whatsoever and
>you fling the CD out the window, screaming and
>then you fall on the floor, writhing about in anger
>and frustration? Yeah, you know it! Exact repetition
>SUCKS BIG TIME.
>
>So you've got a sequencer and you say hey this
>composition stuff is no big deal -- I'll just
>copy this measure a million times and then
>improvise on top of it!
>
>Yeah, I've done that and sure it is fun. But,
>you know it ain't no good since it drives people
>nuts. So if you do use that method, at least do
>something else with it like:
>
>1. Go in an' make little changes to every one
> of the repeated measures so they aren't all
> the same.
>
>or
>
>2. Once you got a certain amount of stuff going on,
> toss out the original ostinato track.
>
>or
>
>3. Rerecord the pattern track in real time so
> that there are variations.
>
>or
>
>4. Don't make those copies to begin with, but
> thorough-compose everything.
>
>"Don't make it perfect":
>
>1. Please do not quantize everything. Kindly
> let it breath.
>2. Stay away from small exactly just ratios.
>3. Never ever ever ever use a 1200.00000 cent octave.
> They are not found in nature!!!!!
>4. What is with every velocity on this entire
> track is 64?? And why is every note exactly
> 384 ticks long?? If you are doing this you
> do not know what you are doing!
>
>Back to "no exact copies":
>
>Be _real_ careful if using digital instruments, or
>particularly sampling. Do *something* to break up the
>monotony. Use some FM or PWM or physical modelling. Stay
>away from those sounds that just rapidly converge upon a
>completely unnatural phase-locked integer harmonic sustain
>loop. (That means most of the synths and sound cards out
>there, by the way.) Or just use some acoustic instruments.
>And don't use a drum machine if you can avoid it. If you
>can't get 'real' drums, record your stapler, your
>scissors, the banging of a can of coffee or a tin of
>ship's biscuits, sticks knocked together, rocks, flower
>pots, fingernail clippings transposed down 4 octaves,
>frogs, terapins... percussion is everywhere!
>
>Dan't stick all your instruments in the middle
>of the speakers and leave them there. Please!!
>No real instruments stay in the exact same place.
>Even seated orchestra members fidget and shift
>about, changing the sound subtlely.
>
>Now that I am thinking about it, the albums that
>I end up really listening to over and over always
>have lots of little secrets -- little sounds and
>touches and subtleties that I never noticed before
>that after listening to them the 1000th time I notice
>for the first time. It's a wonderful feeling finding
>some interesting little detail hidden in the mix.
>As an example, I'll mention all of the Beatles
>albums from Sgt. Pepper onwards.
>
>It's like when you have been driving your car for
>ten years and one day you look down and you say,
>"Hey, what's this switch??"
>
>It's like when you walk past a vacant lot every
>day for two years and then one day the vacant lot
>is no longer there and in its place is a 100 year
>old building that is surrounded with overgrown
>bushes and vines and you know that you have shifted
>into a parallel universe. Or when you go to the
>supermarket and say "Don't you have any of those
>blue grapefruits?" and they say "There is no
>such thing! Grapefruits are pink!" And you
>say "Huh? Since when?"
>
>I could go on with these examples but I'll stop.
>I do think that cataloguing these things is
>a great idea and lots of fun!
>
>- Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Sustained Interest and Perfection [Uplifting Energy]

🔗J Scott <xjscott@earthlink.net>

🔗monz <MONZ@JUNO.COM>

🔗Aaron Boyle <djbeelzebub@hotmail.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗Seth Austen <klezmusic@earthlink.net>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com