On the history and influences of modern drone music

Sam_Zen · May 20, 2009, 23:03:37

Well, this conversation, ending up in mist, strengthen me in my conviction that working with electronic sound is another perspective than composing a mozart-thing, or a rock-song. A concept I once called MUX.
It's nice here, that Clones mentions a difference between pitch based things and noise.

Another element which is not present in the classical music-way : the language of the modulation signal.

So sometimes Jimi Hendrix didn't so much spoke through his guitar notes, but by the excellent use of his wah-pedal.

uncloned · May 21, 2009, 01:02:27

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"

Another element which is not present in the classical music-way : the language of the modulation signal.

So sometimes Jimi Hendrix didn't so much spoke through his guitar notes, but by the excellent use of his wah-pedal.

You are right - classical music didn't really start that exploration until the Advant Guarde instrument explorations.

I think that evolved because recording was not possible so all performers strove for an "ideal" that every composer could count on when their piece committed to paper was performed.

Sam correct me if I am wrong - my view of MUX is that any sound source can be manipulated in any way via the new electronic sound environment that has evolved - once trapped in a music studio - now it can be in our computers. Performance is no longer a limitation and not even desirable in all cases.

Louigi Verona · May 21, 2009, 09:13:52

You don't understand what I am saying because the concept of sound music is something I haven't talked about at all and I think this topic is one of the first times I mentioned it in public. What I did not mention was what I mean by that, so not wishing to talk in riddles I'll just postpone this topic for further discussion, when I will explain my vision. It is very clear and you will instantly see why I said that sound music is a more general concept that music concrete or ambient or whatever.

uncloned · May 21, 2009, 10:35:23

kind of an odd place to leave things...

"I have a brilliant idea which I'm not going to discuss - but trust me it is brilliant."

Which is why I said I gave up a few replies ago.

Louigi Verona · May 21, 2009, 12:06:46

Sorry for that. I am not able to tell you about my "brilliant" idea now because I have to formulate it carefully and writing hastily while I am at work is not very good. I promise to present it soon.

Sam_Zen · May 21, 2009, 21:52:55

Quote from: "uncloned"..once trapped in a music studio - now it can be in our computers. Performance is no longer a limitation and not even desirable in all cases.

Right, but I'm not sure. I can imagine situations where only a live performance would be desirable.
And the way things are evolved now, leads to the idea, that doing the work in a studio is a different art, than doing the work to perform things on a stage, etc.

Manipulation is not new, by the way. Why having 20 violists playing the same notes in a symphony orchestra ?
Because there weren't any electric amplifiers, so just to add up the power.
And the typical sound by interference because no player of the 20 does exactly the same in sync.
Why having an organ in a church ? Because it's extra impressive caused by the wide reverberation.

With electronics it's not only possible to manipulate sound, but to do it in a very precise way, microscopic.

But let's go back to the drone issue, before this discussion becomes a drone..

Louigi Verona · May 22, 2009, 06:06:31

If there is anything left to discuss, really. This topic is about an interesting article on the history of drone music on which Chris asked why limit oneself to one style. I argued that drone is not style and I think we've explored that enough. If anyone has got anything to add or ask/say something else about drone music, I would be glad to discuss it.