Today we have lots of software, sophisticated apps, complex sound modules, VST technology and serious sound processing algorithms. User-friendly interfaces allow us to easily make a tune, all synchronized, routed properly and very visually.
Back in the days there was no such stuff. There was, however, dedicated hardware. And by dedicated I mean that it wasn't the cheap mass production crap we get today - the quality level of modern synthesizers is noticeably lower thanks to their orientation on non-professionals and large sales - but the sturdy half-room machines like some Roland synths, which would be samplers, sequencers, keyboards - all in one.
I've heard about these, I've seen them on stage, but I've never actually tried one and I am not sure whether all of the above functionality actually exists or maybe it's fiction and everyone actually used Cakewalk 0.001 with cool sound cards.
Yet I've tried Cakewalk and it was complete crap to be doing dance music on. Even latest versions.
So... what do you guys think? Maybe a couple of experienced chaps like Sam and Chris know something? Because basically I want to know what was the whole rave culture based upon. Certainly not on Cubase or Fruity Loops - those appeared much later. Then what?
They used a sampler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampler_%28musical_instrument%29) and synthesizers (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer).
The sampler worked as the sequenser.
Yeah, but I am not searching for a cliche answer, man. I know what samplers and synthesizers are. Also, it doesn't add up if you research it a bit.
You see, Scooter, for instance, worked on their first album in 1994. Various raves and house music appeared even earlier, in 1990-1992. The samplers pictured on photos in that article didn't yet exist. but they managed to sequence full albums.
I've checked a list of Roland synthesizers up to 1994. Few of them are as sophisticated as first versions of sequencers we are using today. As for samplers, the only one that existed and was serious were AKAI products: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akai#Akai_Professional
However, it is not clear (at least to me) what they could actually do.
If they all had been using synths and basic samplers, question is... how? How did they do it? How did the composing look back then? Record 8 tracks, then do other 8 tracks and synchronize them with already existing material? Because most synths and so called musical stations usually had 8 track sequencers built into them.
Today when we sequence a track we edit every bit and detail of a sound and only now we manage to get the same sound as those guys did back then without all this software. How?
I know prodiy used Roland Workstation 30 before they were signed to a label.
Another example of how people worked.
QuoteIn 1989, Orbital recorded a track called "Chime" on their father's cassette deck.
Check out Tangerine Dreams or Jean Michelle Jear, they were "commercially active" in electronic synthesized music much-much earlier than Scooter example. They constructed even some custom hardware to make their jobs easier and to be able to produce the wanted sounds, but they were surrounded most of the time with a lot of analog hardware stuff while producing. The first modular synths (like the famous Moog) were invented around 1964 or so, if i'm not mistaken, and they were developing the idea deeper and deeper quite fast after that. Around 1990, we already had some pretty "advanced" analog (even digital) hardware stuff to produce kinda easily.
(Scooters first albums and the "pop/rave etc" musics around that year were not really well synchronized, you could mostly pinpoint the timing errors on their separate tracks by listening. I assume that they didn't used real BPM sync, but that is ok, they did a great job anyway.) ;)
Interesting fact: At least one of Jarre's albums was done by glueing pieces of cassette tape together.
Well, this is just too complicated to answer, because a lot of things were going on then.
I also did some glueing pieces of reel tape together to make some sequence.
My own EMS, and also Moog, ARP, and Buchla came up with analog modular sytems.
But my AKS already had a 256-step digital sequencer, which was a hybrid design of logic circuits and DA-converters.
More of these things came along. The first digital delays showed up. In fact meaning the first samplers of a few msecs of sound in a memory.
Casio CZ-101
http://www.vintagesynth.com/casio/cz101.php
PC with an ADLIB card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdLib
CASIO MT-68
http://www.synthmania.com/mt-68.htm
An example of an adlib card composition is here:
http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?msg=23832.0#msg23832
I can dig up examples of using the others is wanted.
QuoteScooters first albums and the "pop/rave etc" musics around that year were not really well synchronized, you could mostly pinpoint the timing errors on their separate tracks by listening.
Really? Wow, can you post examples? I am very-very interested to hear.
Quote from: "uncloned"
I can dig up examples of using the others is wanted.
Yeah, of Casio synths.
So from what I understand, doing music back then was pretty much the same kind of sweet pain as it was with my Simplicity album which I made outside the sequencer using just a sound editor and separate VST. You play parts and you then glue them together and you get excited when everything sounds almost 100% in time.
This sounds exciting.
There is (at least) an Eno album which sounds pretty electronic, although the instruments are just a string quartet playing Pachebel's canon; the electronification is made with just some tapes, altering the velocity (real velocity, not volume) as a function of the pitch.
Eno used a lot of tricks with tapes in the 80's and even 70's. I hear a show in Madrid by Fripp and Eno. The electronics were made with a synthesizer, but mostly with tapes that recorded every sound from the guitar and repeat it as loops.
Its even possible to use some hardware that actually has step sequencers/patterns in them, to make songs.
For instance, take Rebirth. You might think of Propellorheads Rebirth, but its actually a software remake of the hardware equillevant (did I wrote that correctly?).
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Quote from: "uncloned"
I can dig up examples of using the others is wanted.
Yeah, of Casio synths.
I used these synths through till 97 for the MT-68 and 2002 for the CZ-101
All Casio CZ-101 (love this synth!) This piece is from 85 actually.
http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=2437.0
And the drums and keyboard is the Casio MT-68 here and it is from 84 or 85
http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=2679.0
now of course you limited yourself to the 90's... I was making electronic back into 79 or 80. I recently found a tape with "circuit bent" guitar pedals as the only sound source and effect source. - no key board and no guitar. I just plugged the pedals into themselves.
Quote from: "rncekel"There is (at least) an Eno album which sounds pretty electronic, although the instruments are just a string quartet playing Pachebel's canon; the electronification is made with just some tapes, altering the velocity (real velocity, not volume) as a function of the pitch.
Eno used a lot of tricks with tapes in the 80's and even 70's. I hear a show in Madrid by Fripp and Eno. The electronics were made with a synthesizer, but mostly with tapes that recorded every sound from the guitar and repeat it as loops.
Edgar Varese predates Eno I think. He used tape techniques for this - premiered in 1958 at the Brussels World Fair and used some 400 speakers. Though I'm pretty sure the Musique Concrete genre predates this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AT8rI_A8M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po%C3%A8me_%C3%A9lectronique
http://discorgy.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/varese-xenakis-le-corbusier-poeme-electronique-1958/
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"So from what I understand, doing music back then was pretty much the same kind of sweet pain (...)
I don't know what kind of reality you're living in, but you know, there were times when people actually played instruments. by hand. :P
some of us still do :-)
It's 'equivalent', LP.
rncekel is right. Things could be played with non-electronic instruments, but making an electronic composition nonetheless.
Quotethe electronification is made with just some tapes, altering the velocity (real velocity, not volume) as a function of the pitch.
When I was, 1971, student for a year at the Institute for Sonology, Utrecht, the technicians there constructed a tape-machine that could do such things, time-shifting, called the Tempophone.
Edgar Varese predates (the Poeme Electronique) Eno, and some French composers, like Pierre Henry, did Musique Concrete already.
In fact, talking about the start of things, these works predate anything made with piano-look-a-like keyboards.
Before any single composer like me, could get his hand on a modular synthesizer, electronic music was made for years already in some dedicated studios, set up by universities. Like in Paris, Cologne, Utrecht, Eindhoven and others.
Huge studios, with big, heavy 19 inch equipment, industrial oscillators, scientific filters, hardware patchboards, etc.
And tape-recorders of course (The first samplers in fact. Slicing sound in pieces, making duplicates, stretching in time or pitch).
So one could say : the
pre-portable era..
Concerts of these academic studios were, apart from the content, quite boring, having to watch a running taperecorder.
edit: Typically, imo the compositions of the local technician, Jaap Vink, were far better than works from some Utrecht professors.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"the quality level of modern synthesizers is noticeably lower thanks to their orientation on non-professionals and large sales
You mean "build quality" and not "sound quality", right?
Quote from: "uncloned"some of us still do :-)
:shock:
Quote from: Sam_ZenIt's 'equivalent', LP.
rncekel is right. Things could be played with non-electronic instruments, but making an electronic composition nonetheless.
Quotethe electronification is made with just some tapes, altering the
So one could say : the pre-portable era..
Concerts of these academic studios were, apart from the content, quite boring, having to watch a running taperecorder.
edit: Typically, imo the compositions of the local technician, Jaap Vink, were far better than works from some Utrecht professors.
That term is very fitting - pre-portable.
And - academics in the 20th century seemed to focus on... an alien feel quite often - perhaps unique but often lacking a soul. When expressively written it can be very, very good. But for instance I bought album after album of George Crumb's composition on Nonesuch records based on the description and was disappointed nearly every time. His concept was good - extreme minimalism and instrument exploration - but it most devoid of any expression I could divine.
But... on the other hand a Stravinsky piano etude, a simple set of intervals - evoked massive associations.
Yep, Nonesuch records had quite some examples. Listening, you think : ok, clever, but then what ?
You mention it, lacking of soul. Part of my restrictioned feelings about those early electronic compositions :
Soul also means rhythm in my way. Almost never any nice percussion structures in those pieces.
As the Duke said : It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing..
Thanks for all the input, although I am not satisfied. I think nobody really knows the answer.
I listened to Casio tracks, but they do not sound like the dance music I am talking about, with beautiful sounds, tight arrangements and very detailed sequencing. (Perhaps, those synths are capable of delivering that, but the tunes did not show that)
The amount of detail is what bothers me. If you listen to Scooter 1st album, you can hear lots of detailed stuff. In order to do that today, you would need a sequencer and edit every aspect of sound to get the same effect. They did it in 1994 without computers.
Also, I listened hard for any inconsistencies in synchronizations but found none - everything is perfectly in place.
Sorry Louigi,
I noticed that I was going out of line. I thought this was about how it all started, but now I saw that you asked about 1990..
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"They did it in 1994 without computers.
I'm pretty sure they did it with computers. Midi and sequencers have been around for a long time. The first version of Cubase (for Atari ST) was released in 1989, one of the most used synths ever, Roland JV-1080, was released in 1994. The biggest differences between now and then are probably hard disk based editing and software synths/effects.
If you're wondering about songs like those from 2-unlimited, etc... They were actually tracked, as far as I know. I even read somewhere that Eminem also used a tracker in earlier songs.
Quote from: "LPChip"If you're wondering about songs like those from 2-unlimited, etc... They were actually tracked, as far as I know.
As far as you know or as far as you think you may have heard someone say they might have have been using a tracker at some point in time?
Yeah, I am wondering about those kinda stuff. But I want a bit more than just guessing. I can guess very easily. I am trying to understand with as much precision as possible.
The tracker theory for Eminem I can believe, for 2Unlimited? No way! I have never to this day heard a tracker get a sound so high quality as 2Unlimited arrangements, with all the filters and compressors.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Yeah, I am wondering about those kinda stuff. But I want a bit more than just guessing.
I think that for a better guess than unspecified early 90's sequencer on an unspecified early 90's computer combined with some unspecified early 90's synths/samplers, you need to ask Scooter or 2 unlimited directly :)
On a related note, I found a site that deals with famous sounds: Famous Sounds @ Synthmania.com (http://www.synthmania.com/Famous%20Sounds.htm). You can find examples of synths, beats or effects, not just from the 90's. If you go to the main site there is a lot of information about and demos of synthesizers. Perhaps you'll find something useful there.
Thanks, g! That seems useful, I'll research the site!
Of Eminem, I'm sure.
The reason why I suspect groups like 2 unlimited, is that the songs are repeative in their construct, like a tracker. You can hear how the patterns get back and evolve. You have a certain sound, and things get added to that. A sequencer is one big and long recording.
The other option would be mixing like a DJ, using short clips.
Quote from: "LPChip"Of Eminem, I'm sure.
A reference would be nice, I tried to find some more info but everything is called a "tracker" these days, so no luck :(
Quote from: "LPChip"A sequencer is one big and long recording.
I completely disagree with that statement.
Quite useless to agree or not. It's semantically a wrong expression.
A sequencer is a tool, which is not the same as some type of recording of the result.
I think the word 'sequence' was meant here by LP.
If so, 'one big and long recording' stays a bit of a too fuzzy statement.
But I agree, around 1990 the use of sequencers became broadly popular to produce base-material for a dance-song.
Of course Tangerine Dream using the Moog one, and Kraftwerk preceded this.
In the beginning sequencers were a tool without any direct sound output. Not like in e.g. Rebirth.
A row of 8 or 16 pots set at a certain value, scanned by a stepping-clock, not producing a sound but an analog voltage to control sound-sources.
2 unlimited is a nice example. If I'm not mistaken, many of their tracks were recorded in the Wisseloord studio in Hilversum, NL.
My niece worked in that studio those days, and told me that they had bought a ARP 2600 then.
A huge analog modular synthesizer, with a few sequencers, synced of course, plus a wide piano-keyboard.
Stevie Wonder made quite some early recordings with his ARP 2600 too.
In the meantime some people made a VSTi of it.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2mqqfz4.jpg)
Quote from: "LPChip"You can hear how the patterns get back and evolve. You have a certain sound, and things get added to that. A sequencer is one big and long recording.
I completely disagree with that statement. In any sequencer there are patterns,
even in hardware sequencers. Always were. And you can switch them around and play them again.
Actually, it is really weird you wrote that. Do you really think all of the people who are using sequencers actually have no pattern functionality?!! No offence meant, I am just curious.
Quote2 unlimited is a nice example. If I'm not mistaken, many of their tracks were recorded in the Wisseloord studio in Hilversum, NL.
My niece worked in that studio those days, and told me that they had bought a ARP 2600 then.
Allright!!!!!
Now this is the kind of information I was talking about! There you go!
Sam, you are great! I did have a feeling you could help.
I will study what this ARP can do.
Nice. It was a bit intuitive to mention it, but maybe they are crucial in the developments.
All emphasis about that period is on the Moogs of course, due to clever publications.
In professional circles the products of EMS were well established too.
But when I chose to buy the Synthi AKS then, there was one other candidate in my budget : the ARP Odyssey.
I chose for a more open, basic system. The ARP was more keyboard based, so I guess modern users would have chosen that one.
Another elecronic scene one should explore of this time is 'Tonto - the expanding head band'.
Two producers, having worked with Stevie Wonder, using afaik Moog and ARP stuff as well.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Thanks for all the input, although I am not satisfied. I think nobody really knows the answer.
I listened to Casio tracks, but they do not sound like the dance music I am talking about, with beautiful sounds, tight arrangements and very detailed sequencing. (Perhaps, those synths are capable of delivering that, but the tunes did not show that)
The amount of detail is what bothers me. If you listen to Scooter 1st album, you can hear lots of detailed stuff. In order to do that today, you would need a sequencer and edit every aspect of sound to get the same effect. They did it in 1994 without computers.
Also, I listened hard for any inconsistencies in synchronizations but found none - everything is perfectly in place.
Ahhh - now you define your question even more. In 1994 they were using MIDI between instruments - everything is being driven from one clock.
in 1994 instruments were microprocessor based - so saying it was done without a computer is incorrect. They did it in firmware.
If you want without a computer go to early Tangerine Dream (like ATEM) or Pink Floyd (On the Run from Dark Side of the Moon).
I understand that Kraftwerk built their first electronic instruments.
But... since you talk about dance music - which does not have a corner on those attributes of beautiful sounds and clear lines - narrows down things quite a bit.
If you want to know what was used in what era and what the attributes of the equipment was look here
http://www.vintagesynth.com/index.php
I'm seriously confused here Louigi, it seems you completely disregard any post stating that samplers, MIDI and computer based sequencers existed (and were common) in the (early) 90's.
Also, with all due respect for Sam Zen's experience, I think he's confusing the 90's and the 70's.
Yep, I must admit, I was confusing things.
g: I know very well what computer programs were available then - and they sucked.
I did however find te answer to the question on the Scooter fan site. It's in Russian but it shows the hardware they've been using throughout the years - lots of it.
Like here: http://www.scootertrace.ru/equipment/
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"g: I know very well what computer programs were available then - and they sucked.
LV you are so prejudiced and have a closed mind sometimes.
FTII certainly didn't suck. And lots of people swear by impulse tracker.
And... all the hardware synths and sequencers were computer driven by then. Everything was midi based, which uses an UART serial chip, by the mid 80's
QuoteLV you are so prejudiced and have a closed mind sometimes.
I would be grateful if we keep personal insults out of this (and in fact, any) discussion - I very well know your opinion about me.
The reason why I say they've sucked, because I've actually worked with basically every major music software which was available in the 90s, which includes midi software and FT2, which, I know from personal experience, is incapable of producing same sonic results which I hear in Scooter albums. The sound quality of the engine itself and they kind of sample quality it can handle is suitable for hip-hop beats but not for clear sounds of rave electronic music, not speaking about filter work. I am 100% sure that Scooter did not use FT2 - and there is nothing close minded about it. It would be close minded to say that no professional used it, cause I cannot know, but I suspect that no professional musician in the 90s used FT2. My suspicion may be wrong but chances are it is right are higher.
As for midi software, it was there and with a cool soundcard it would give cool results, but such midi software, like Cakewalk, was very bad for writing electronic music - it was all about sheet music and notes. I actually tried doing rave music on Cakewalk in 2002-2003 and failed - it just isn't the kind of software.
As for midi soft which might've been bundled with synths, such software sucks now and there is a lot of chance it sucked then. ) in fact, Roland workstations had pretty cool built in sequencers, I was told by a friend who used it. I cannot check it but I trust him.)
On this one I cannot know for sure, of course, but I would say that it is highly improbable that a computer would've been used as a sequencer, besides you can see stuff like TR-909 and TB-303 on the list which they say they use extensively even today and those are not computer driven. Just too many different hardware. I think it is valid reasoning.
I suspect they would play it together, make a general scheme of the tune and then record every instrument track to the tape or whatever carrier was available and then mixed it with a studio mixer. I think that sounds realistic, what do you think?
but you see - just because the software wasn't what you wanted (actually I suspect just isn't what you are used to) it therefore must suck.
I think cakewalk was fine software and in fact I was able to write electronic music with it. Cakewalk WAS one of the "professional" software packages out there. For heaven's sake I wrote electronic music on an adlib card.
I think people who have a closed mind limit themselves unnecessarily. Just not liking sheet music and notes... an input format is just that - its no different from a piano roll or a tracker grid fundamentally.
Using cakewalk one can drive a computer based synth or sampler via midi and create wonderful electronic music. People did all the time... and still do.
And I didn't mean it as an insult - I truly wish you'd open your mind sometimes. I firmly believe you limit yourself for no reason.
QuoteI think cakewalk was fine software and in fact I was able to write electronic music with it. Cakewalk WAS one of the "professional" software packages out there. For heaven's sake I wrote electronic music on an adlib card.
Perhaps you are right. I just suspect they did not do it because in 1993 it was just more common to use hardware than software. Why use software when you have a lot of hardware? Why then use TR-909 as a drum machine or Virus synths or Roland workstations which have sequencers? It doesn't add up with all the clarity to me. It might come from an opinion which I have that at that time most professionals were suspicious of software and relied on hardware more.
As for "sucked" I meant that software was less detailed, less sophisticated. It was, in many ways - there is no arguing about it. By "sucked" I didn't really mean it was bad - I love FT2. Never liked Cakewalk though, it never worked for me.
I agree totally that at the time most everything was hardware based - but the DX 7 or Casio CZ-1 (or CZ-101) or a drum machine were built around a computer chip and practically all of it supported midi.
The software for the most part was not as feature rich, yes. Though sometimes I think Sonar may have become too much of a swiss army knife.
(though FTII is hard to beat even now)
Please warn me, if there will be any shootout here.. I will duck away for a while. :)
QuoteI suspect that no professional musician in the 90s used FT2
Sorry Louigi, count me out here. I used FT2 then on my first DOS-machines, and I consider myself of being a professional composer at that time.
When switching from analog to PC's, I chose to skip the MIDI-way, and concentrate on the tracker modules.
To me, MIDI was too much expensive hardware, for which I had no budget, and tracking gave me free control on my instruments.
Instead of being dependent on the soundbank of a particular soundcard (using the SB pro at the time).
The quality of a composition is not directly related to the sound quality of the outcome, imo of course..
But in the beginning of tracking, the main bulk of net-publications were quite crappy, or klones from Bond-movies.
It's good that the TR-909 and TB-303 are mentioned here. Very good basic (drum-)sequencers.
Another hardware coming up then : one of the first digital synths, the DX-7 by Yamaha.
I wasn't saying scooter used FT2 or that software was great at sampling at the time, but software sequencers from the late 80's and early 90's (such as Cubase, KCS, Creator and later on Logic and Pro-Tools) had no problem handling MIDI synths such as the ones listed on the Scooter fan site.
Scooter? Yeah well. They used bog-standard synthesizers. 303s with a step sequencer, 909s... Everything chained together in a hardware or software sequencer. And I even know someone who had a synthesizer that he bought from the Scooter producer. So yes, they did use hardware.
Quote from: "Jojo"So yes, they did use hardware.
I don't think there's any doubt about that, what we're discussing is whether they used software in addition to the hardware (at least that's what I've been discussing ;))
and I've been discussing if computers were involved - which by hook or crook they were.
the last true analog synths (non retro) in the music shops in the US were mini sized with mini keys around 1984 or so.
they were nice for what they were but I wanted polyphonic playing ability.
thus my CZ-101
I wonder how a modern studio looks today and whether lots of hardware is involved today anyway.
What I like about hardware is that you get an instrument with which you can build a musical relationship, like with an acoustic instrument. I find this aspect of a musician's life very important. Software can also be in such a relationship, but a hardware synth is more tactile, more "real".
I certainly agree with your view on hardware.
My friend Mike just had his album mastered in a studio.
It was all ProTools - software AND hardware.
I still use both soft- and hardware in my studio and I don't see much difference. Sound-tools whatever.
I've build a close relationship with my synth along the years, but also with OMPT and CEP.
Although with the synth somewhat closer, because of the more unique properties.
QuoteReally? Wow, can you post examples? I am very-very interested to hear.
ah sorry, late answer to that question, example this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPWIRDhHEBw
but hearing it again, it is more like a latency delay between hardware and/or VST instruments, than a BPM unsync question. You can pick the "issue" easy amongst layers in this one. I'm sure we can find other songs, mayb even with not accurately synced BPM (don't have to b Scooter), just need to listen to them more carefully.
Nice, heard scooter for the first time in this tube, indeed sometimes latency delay plays a role here and there.
The music doesn't excite me much. Quite average use of the tools of that moment.
Maybe it's due to the fact that I know this tune from a very young age, but to be honest I hear no delays there...
I don't really hear any sync problems or delay issues either...
that is ok, just need to oil your ears more ;)
oh wait... you won't hear anything if you do that =(
those latency errors are perhaps not audible for every "naked" listener's ear, and that is totally fine, it's a very small latency difference after all. But i'm usually able to hear even few tenth of millisecond slides, even i'm kinda picky on those errors, so i love to make everything accurate as it can possibly be. Scooter did their best from what they had in that time, i'm very sure of that. I respect them anyway.
Thanks Psi. I was starting to doubt my ears. One could be over-concentrated on this, because it was mentioned.
And imagine things that aren't there. But it happens somewhere just past the middle.
Not very heavy issue though.
Well, the drums sort of do start with a delay. To be honest I always liked this effect. But in other tunes from the album I do not believe I hear same delays.
Actually my sense of timing is as good as my sense of pitch, which isn't at all. I'm impressed by tenth of milliseconds tho :)
QuoteTo be honest I always liked this effect.
Right, and if you like something, you will not spot it as an error. Simple. :P
hmm. maybe sometimes a technical 'error' will cause something you will like. Simple too.
I put this here for LV to see:
Debussy was more a Symbolist than an Impressionist who might have followed Mallarmé's dictum, "To name an object sacrifices three-quarters of the enjoyment. To suggest it - that is our dream". Certainly, he never considered himself an "Impressionist", describing his approach to composition in the following terms.
"There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It must never be shut in and become an academic art."
Debussy the revolutionary.
Right on
Quote from: "uncloned"I put this here for LV to see:
Debussy was more a Symbolist than an Impressionist who might have followed Mallarmé's dictum, "To name an object sacrifices three-quarters of the enjoyment. To suggest it - that is our dream". Certainly, he never considered himself an "Impressionist", describing his approach to composition in the following terms.
"There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It must never be shut in and become an academic art."
Debussy the revolutionary.
I am thinking Debussy is now important enough to look into never before but then well that would be taking away from the mystique of the whole Debussy thing.
Quote from: "uncloned"Debussy was more a Symbolist than an Impressionist who might have followed Mallarmé's dictum, "To name an object sacrifices three-quarters of the enjoyment. To suggest it - that is our dream". Certainly, he never considered himself an "Impressionist", describing his approach to composition in the following terms.
"There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It must never be shut in and become an academic art."
This is an admirable view which I share.
To me however, music theory is interesting too. It is like philosophy, which names things, certainly even gives definitions to them, but often makes it sound so interesting and so fascinating that the world around us does not become less vibrant.
My interest in music theory arose from reading overview of ideas of Heinrich Schenker. It is a fascinating thing, these ideas of his. Looking so deep into the origins of composing notes makes it even more beautiful.
Also, I would place music theory at far reach from musical practice. Music theory is always a list of ideas, suggestions and experience. One has to always prioritize the liveliness of his impressions and talent over the theoretical basis.
However, we should not forget that the wind, although travels free, never travels where it wants. It also has it's paths set by the invisible rules of temperature. No matter how free you go, you end up following rules, albeit rules noone has written down.
Funny, but I am equally able to work in both modes - as a passionate composer and as a cold analyst.
This seems to be a change from where you were at a year ago.
So you are embracing the western classical music tradition as another tool?
The freedom from theory is the freedom not to be condemned to repeat what has been done already. It is relatively easy to take the ideas of others and rearrange them and think you've done something great because "it sounds good". Of course it will sound good because someone else already solved the puzzle. Study of theory lends itself to this trap.
If Debussy was the wind then he carved new canyons to flow through.
It ain't necessary so, that having a theory would lead automatically to academic art.
Unfortunately electronic music, since the start, hasn't developed any theory on its own.
Because it didn't stay on its own. All kind of other sound art disciplines included it, borrowing the properties.
Especially electronic instruments have properties, very distinctive from all the rest.
Properties according to specific rules of physics, and such rules should have led to a specific theory.
A good theory will not force people to do the same thing every time, but should help them to explore their fields.
certainly not... on the other hand using chord progression charts instead of ears is in my mind not composing.
I would be grateful if you remind me of where I was a year ago - so that I understand more clearly what we are discussing.
It really depends on how one views music theory and what part of music theory we are talking about. Composition theory, for instance, is, in my opinion, too general to define the resulting tune in such a manner that it strips off creativity.
As for chord charts, I have never used them, but I have observed that many fine unique songs may share same chord progressions. In fact, by mere combinatorics chord progressions are pretty limited.
But I perfectly understand what you mean - music does tend to get stale with time. Take jazz - the genre which appeared as a gasp of musical freedom, bound by nothing, today is one of the most traditional and I would say template music around.
However, I am not sure that music theory has much to do with it. I would place this to our natural need to eventually sort things out, shape them.
Also, consider ragtimes. The form of this genre of music is strictly defined, but yet it doesn't keep people from being creative. In tracking scene certain limitations were known to explode new ideas.
So what is my opinion - music theory should be suggestions and collective experience of composers. It should not be forced as a rule and then it'll be useful without limiting creativity. This is how I see it.
A year ago you discounted that western classical music tradition had any relevance to your music.
This
QuoteSo what is my opinion - music theory should be suggestions and collective experience of composers. It should not be forced as a rule and then it'll be useful without limiting creativity
.
is exactly how I see it.
I don't know how it came from Scooter to Debussy here, but in that time
they used MIDI and hardware synths. If there was any software involved,
it would be a Mac with some MIDI sequencing\syncronization software.
They still use hardware synths a lot (or at least they did six years ago
when I was doing a sound engineering course) and about 50\50 of
hardware vs software effects but that obviously depends on the studio,
the soundman, the artist and so on. Yet I got an impression that they use
hadware effect processor just because the other option is to simply throw
them out.
QuoteA year ago you discounted that western classical music tradition had any relevance to your music.
If we are speaking about drone, then I still stand by it. The roots of drone which I am interested in come from eastern music mostly.
A little bit OT: Last sunday I was at the Auditorio Nacional, hearing (and seeing) a performance of "Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher", by Arthur Honnegger. It was the first time I saw a Martenot wave generator (although I had heard of it before), that can be consider as one of the antecessors of synthesizers. The oratorio was written in 1935. Electronic music is quite old, and related with academic music.
And about music theory: the problem never is the theory, but the use you make of it. If you master the theory and use it to your own interest, it it good. If the theory dominates you and cut your imagination, it is bad.
It is not the thing which is good or bad, but the use we make of it.
Electronic music is a vague term. If it means "music performed and/or composed with electronic instruments" than it really isn't saying much.
I am working on a paper describing a new form of art which can be called "sound music", music which is based on sound manipulation rather than on note combinations. I am eager to share my thoughts here and now, but I think there is no real hurry - I will do so when I finish work on the paper which takes a lot of time and effort.
I wonder if your paper and Sam's MUX concept might not share some points of view / ideas.
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/mux/mux.html
Yep, I think my paper is speaking about the same phenomena, I just analyze it from a perspective of forms of art, not from a perspective of playing an instrument.
QuoteNotes are much less important, changes are.
This is important. The main idea behind my paper is that before recording became possible, music was abstract note-based music, the essence of which are combinations of notes. Today, along with note-based music we have sound-based music, a different form of art the subject of which is sound, not notes.
My whole music theory thing is based on the premise that because sound music has no notes, composition (changes) is the main tool for self expression for the sound composer.