[ambient/drone] Life In The Troposphere LP (mp3)

[Louigi Verona]

Hey guys!

I am happy to present to you an album called Life In The Troposphere.

It is a 46 minute sound landscape.

You can download it here.

To view the design, read the booklet and perhaps listen online if you wish, please navigate here:
http://www.louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=music&t=catalogue&num=0


note: this is also added to my Live Sessions compilation as Ambient 005 here: http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=142

[uncloned]

I grabbed it and will listen. Though 46 minutes is a large investment of time.

[Louigi Verona]

ha! thanks for grabbing well, what people usually do is put this into the background. so just feel free to do the same!

what be interested in what you guys think of this work.

[Paul Legovitch]

Hi,
I've been listening to it with headphones, while doing a bit of reading (on and off).
I liked it, so please don't mind the fact that I'm going to be overcritical.

I may spoil what's happening in the track, so don't read this if you don't want to.
It starts with a minor chord, a bass (crescendos) and a little ascending/descending melody, all very nice. But after 5:40, the sound changes and there is suddenly much more background noise. The result is a bit strange because, the track becomes less clear and with headphones it's really obvious. Then some events are added like the bass glissandos (great) and the droplets-like sounds that prefigure the upcoming rain, but maybe a bit too "melted" into the noise level (I wish it was clearer). Also I can hear some "click" sounds here and there (due to a live recording ? VST problems ? my computer ?).
The main thing I have against the background noise is that it kills the "landscape" feeling : the space feels a bit narrow (with headphones), which may also be the result of a strange handling of the panning (feels more often like chorus effects than precisely positioned sounds).

And then the rain falls (30:00), which is very nice, though it would have been even better with less background noise (similar frequencies). Without a doubt we already switched to the relative major chord, beautiful and optimistic.
Then at last the noise disappears, so does the rain to enter the last 6 minutes part : the best part ! This part perfectly fits the "sound landscape" description with clear evolving chords and nice bird songs (precisely positioned this time). It's a bit of a shame that you end this part with a simple fade out while it's still evolving, why not releasing the chord and then fading the birds (or something like that).

A large investment of time, yeah, but (mostly) worth it, thanks for this track.

[Sam_Zen]

Only heard a first part so far, but also noticed some click sounds.

[Louigi Verona]

Paul, thanks for your time and for the comments.
Basically, the noise is a filtered vocoded pad. It was done there on purpose and follows a certain enjoyment one could have from humming type of sounds - basically, this is what drone music is about and not all of it is melodic in the straightforward sense. Besides, we are speaking about large masses of air hovering, moving, existing.
On the other hand, I do have lots of "sweet" tunes, I've just been there already and sometimes making a more static and noisy tune is very inspiring and interesting. For less noisy drones, check out stuff like
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=136
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=127
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=75
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=69
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=45
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=11

The fadeout thing. Glad that you noticed. Part of the reason why I decided to make a full fade out was because I did not want to display parts from which the tune is made. I mean - if I would've faded out the pads first I would leave birdies only or vice versa. The beauty of such soundscapes is in detail and mix of many events. Sometimes I would do that, but in that tune I did not want to leave any of the sounds in solo mode.
Another reason for this is because I did not want the tune to have an ending - I want it to sound more like part of something bigger. As if this tune was just a glimpse into the larger process.


As for clicks - those are just part of some loops I've used. I've left it because it sounds a lot like ordinary tape clicks, which to me sounded very cute.

[uncloned]

Drone just isn't working for me today. I'm doing laundry so I have it on as do my work. I walked away for 20 minutes and... didn't hear much change. Or much change from the last piece I heard from you.

I have to admit that I'd be extremely bored to be making just one type of music for the years you've invested in this - so I have to applaud your determination.

Excuse me if I seem negative today. Its just how I honestly feel about the piece today. Its just that I'm really familiar with filter sweeps.... so they do not entertain or intrigue me at all.

I know you are capable of writing in any style - I wonder if you can't increase the interest in a piece like this - even if you have to abandon the drone ethic. Or - make much more interesting sounds (beyond filter sweeps) to use.

No doubt people will think I'm an ass for writing this.  I apologize in advance.

[uncloned]

I guess I just don't get this form of music.

Again, I apologize.

[uncloned]

and here:

you may find this discussion something you can add to, I've quoted the question.

http://netnewmusic.ning.com/forum/topics/how-does-one-compose-drone

How does (one) compose Drone music?

I know this community supports a compositional style - that embraces overtones, intonation, and the drone orientation.

Having said that, what are the some of your/others preferred techniques - to create drone music?

[Louigi Verona]

Chris, there is absolutely no need to apologize. I put the music for everyone to hear and I would be a fool not to await lots of various opinions, ranging from "Louigi Verona FTW!!!" to "man, you've done some shitty music today". In fact, I think it is showing respect to sincerely say that you do not like smth.

However, since you've asked and since I love ranting about sound music and such and I've nothing to do anyway, I'll try to explain my perspective on sound music in general and drone music specifically.


The reason why sound music is generally considered weird is because it is compared to a template of melodic music. Constantly looking at sound music as an extravagant variant of melodic music makes it seem "weird", "experimental" and sometimes even "social posing". When viewed in such light, sound music has no chance and - obviously - no melodies.
I do no see sound music as being a derivative of melodic music. So, first of all, I strongly believe that sound music in itself is a different form of art. Like painting and sculpture. Similar, but fundamentally different.

The reason why melodic music and sound music are different forms of art is because they are using different material.
What made sound music? The ability to record sound.

I underline this - not computers, not sound synthesis, but ability to record sound. This is the technology that made the real difference.

Why? Because it turned music from air, from something that can exist only in time to something that can exist in space - it turned music into a substance. Substance that can be modified and worked with.

So the main material of sound music is sound. And melodic music? It also produces sounds. Bu melodic music works with a different kind of material - it works with combination of notes. The whole beauty of melodic music lies in note combinations, in how the composer arranges notes into structures on a grid. Basically, melodic music is highly abstract, like mathematical formulas. It doesn't matter what sounds are used to play melodic music and while it is best if music is played with beautiful sounds, it is not the main point - one can appreciate Bach's études with cheap sounding midi files.

Sound music, on the other hand, although it usually sounds quite abstract to us, is actually a very concrete form of art. It deals with the sound itself. And the beauty of sound music lies in the sounds themselves, much less in how they are arranged - in fact, arranging them on a grid is usually pointless as you require sounds themselves. Of course, the development of sound compositions is a whole different story and is very important as it is the main tool of the sound composer.

The reason why sound music seems abstract is because one awaits melodies - that is, combinations of notes. Our ear is trained to associate structured artificial sound with melodic music - this has been the way music was done for hundreds, thousands of years.

In my opinion, this is the main problem of sound music. Not being recognized properly, it makes listeners expect something different. The word "music" itself is not good. "Sound paintings", "audio paintings" is a more accurate name. If you say - I've written an "audio painting", it would create an absolutely different set of expectations from the audience. Let's look at what those are likely to be.

1. No melodies. Indeed, hardly any melodies might be expected, at least not the usual type of melodies.
2. Sound visualization. This is one of the most important things and my personal opinion is that this is what sound music is about - sound visualization, the focus on the sound itself, virtual touching of the sound with the listener's perception.
3. Tendency to less change. A painting is basically a creation of an environment. While melodic music is usually used to "tell a story" and might have a "plot", a culmination - chorus - a painting is a different way of expressing things. A normal painting is frozen in time, so a painting developing in time might not exhibit much change since it is not a story, it is an environment. This is not a necessary thing, let's this is just a tendency and a possible expectation. Certainly, there are a lot of sound pieces which show a lot of change. But the change is generally not as necessary as in melodic music.

So this partially explains the concept of sound music how I see it.

Drone music is not necessarily tied with sound music.
Drone music might have very different goals behind it - functional (for meditation), emotion throwing out (metal drone), sound painting, whatever.

To me drone music is something that I always had a tendency to. Don't know about other people, but I am always a lot into the atmosphere of the moment, atmosphere of the city, street, place I am in. I enjoy observing the world around and taking mental videos of the moment. If I enjoy the atmosphere of a particular evening, I might remember this evening for years, thinking about it and wanting to reproduce the mood. Lots of places which I think about, recalling their atmosphere, I try to paint with sounds.
Somehow, drone music seems like the best "tool" for this.

You said that I can make a tune more interesting and I can. I just not always feel the piece needs change. There are drone tunes which I do that are designed to have lots of change, constant movement. Other tunes I do to create a sense of slowness or even stillness.

Creating a long sound tune has several goals.
First, it changes the perception of time - you get into the rhythm of changes and stop awaiting changes too fast - your slow down. Your analysis slows down too - instead of perceiving changes, you start seeing the sound, being in it. In fact, it is at this moment one can notice that sound music triggers a different part of your brain.
Second, as a composer you are not limited and can create a vast soundscape - grand even! - by developing the tune in various ways. I have enjoyed this in Journey 98 and do not want to stop there )
Third, lengthy tunes allow you to create the atmosphere you need. Sometimes, it is impossible to create an atmosphere quickly, especially if it is a complex atmosphere - that is, delicate, not straightforward.

Anyway, in this exact piece I wanted to create a very static atmosphere. It actually makes sense too, in a way - if anyone noticed, this tune begins very high and then you do down, into the clouds with rain, then you land and hear the birds and all that other stuff you generally get when closer to the ground. It is also more warm, more optimistic.

However, I think that most people have missed this tune, I consider it to be a very good tune in terms of development and atmosphere. It has lots of change, the development is slow, but steady.
http://www.disc-shelf.com/?album=45
or
http://www.louigiverona.com/files/Formation.mp3

Tune is called Formation (part one).

Anyway, I'll finish off here, wanna sleep =)

[uncloned]

I'll give formation piece a shot - a lot in your response to digest.

You should join newnetmusic's conversation

here is one observation I had

interesting - so a didgeridoo is really a prime drone example - no?
So one can say drone has roots probably some 50,000 years old?

in response to

this is a drone composer you may  know of - Phill Niblock

Hey, Chris. Thanks for listening earlier.

Don't know if this will work, but you can check out some Niblock here:

http://play.rhapsody.com/phill-niblock/young-persons-guide-to-phill-niblock-ypgpn

[Sam_Zen]

If a didge is an ancient drone, than the binatang (sago beetle) is as well.
Probably one of the first autophonic instruments used by humans.

Again here, with the choice of different names for different outputs, the discussion is a rather semantic one.

Drone music - sound music - melodic music - experimental music, soundscape, well, whatsoever.
I agree with Lougi, that a painting is another visual art discipline than a movie. No way to demand the same technique or materials.

So the same with audible art. Removing the word 'music' from the above examples is possible.
Drone - melodic - experimental, it's enough for being a genre. But 'sound music' is a silly expression imo.
And I'm quite strict about 'drone'. To me it's something with just one groundfrequency being there with everything else on top.
It's therefore not immediately equivalent with some 'monotonous' happening.

By the way: if there is a soundscape, and one mixes some bird sound in it, isn't that adding some melodic element ?

So on with 'Formation' :

The beginning seems to be rhythmless sound structures, and then at 5:14 some quite fast sequence elements are introduced.
Fine, Tangerine Dream did this trick very often in an obvious, more emphasized way.
But... from that moment on, I felt uncomfortable because some sync was missing.
Because there is one timing element from the start, and that is the delay time of the echo repeat.
After 5:14 the sequence has a certain basic clock speed, which has no relation at all to the echo repeat time interval.
I experience these things as being 'out of tune', and this can easily lead to a feeling of uncomfort.

[uncloned]

sounds very much like a didgeridoo.

And - here - the fundamentals being emphasized - here you go with the first scale/tuning for melody besides just singing.

[Louigi Verona]

Chris: Yep, drone music is very ancient.

Phil Niblock site said that it has cleverly detected I am out of the USA, so I am not allowed to view its content. But I know this composer, although I'll have to study his work more carefully.

Sam:

Drone music - sound music - melodic music - experimental music, soundscape, well, whatsoever.

I do not agree. It is that carelessness with words that leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Words do matter and it's not a whatever. Drone music, melodic music, experimental music - all of those are very different things and cover different aspects, some terms inter-cross and just saying - oh, those are semantics - means loosing all the important details.

And I'm quite strict about 'drone'. To me it's something with just one groundfrequency being there with everything else on top.

This is your own version of drone definition, but it does not correlate with a more general definition which is there. Your definition is too specific. Drone music can be very different and the only necessary element is that it should be based on long sounds or repeating clusters of sounds. It does not have to be monotonous, but it can be. And if you listen to drone music a lot, specifically to people like La Monte Young, you would see that your definition, Sam, does not stand up to what those people do and they are the ones who started the contemporary drone movement in the western world.

By the way: if there is a soundscape, and one mixes some bird sound in it, isn't that adding some melodic element?

No. Even if you mix some piano sound, it does not become melodic music unless you treat it like one - that is, start creating combination of notes. This is actually a very delicate thing. If you take a recording of a piano, but treat it as sound material - it is already a different, non-melodic approach. Please, think about it, if required, I can demonstrate. I think this is one of the keys thing I would want to point out, since it shows a difference between two different approaches - basically, between melodic music and sound painting.

After 5:14 the sequence has a certain basic clock speed, which has no relation at all to the echo repeat time interval.

I don't understand what you are talking about - all delays are in sync to the main clock.

[Sam_Zen]

If you take a recording of a piano, but treat it as sound material

I've got the impression that you want to convince me about such things, which is not necessary.
I'm already aware of these distinctions for quite a while. Check my Mux concept.