What did people use to make electronic music with in 1990?

[g]

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

[Saga Musix]

To be honest I always liked this effect.

Right, and if you like something, you will not spot it as an error. Simple.

[Sam_Zen]

hmm. maybe sometimes a technical 'error' will cause something you will like. Simple too.

[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.

[Sam_Zen]

Right on

[Ice9]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

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.

[uncloned]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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.

[uncloned]

certainly not... on the other hand using chord progression charts instead of ears is in my mind not composing.

[Louigi Verona]

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.

[uncloned]

A year ago you discounted that western classical music tradition had any relevance to your music.

This

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

.

is exactly how I see it.

[Rxn]

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.

[Louigi Verona]

A 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.

[rncekel]

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.