RE: looping as sin

[Doug Wyatt <doug@sonosphere.com>]

At 13:15 -0500 2/9/98, Michael P. Hughes, Ph.D. wrote:
> >> >  guess I'm
> >> >bugged when I feel that people are abdicating their musical 
>flexibilty
> >> >or decision-making to whatever tool it is that they use.
>
> >> I always find it remarkable when people perceive the newer, electronic
> >> devices as "technology" in preference to older things. I think the
>piano is
> >> one of the most stunning technological accomplishments humans have 
>ever
> >> made. The amount of knowledge and invention that had to happen before 
>the
> >> modern piano could exist is simply amazing. That to me is one of the
>finest
> >> examples of technology I can think of. Just because it's been 
>basically
> >> finished for a hundred years doesn't lessen the technical 
>accomplishment.
>
> >Sometimes I think of how revolutionary equal temperament was.  And yet, 
>in
> >the bigger picture, it too is a constraint.  Sometimes I like to 
>microtune
> >my synths as a way of choosing a different constraint.
>
> I often find it amazing that using a single tonality is insufficient for 
>us
> these days.  The "one-sound" violin has been sufficient for about 4
> centuries of music; at no point did anyone say "right, we've exhausted 
>all
> we can do with that, bin it".

Michael,

It's fascinating to me that you used the violin as an analogy with which to
knock microtuning, since, unlike many other instruments, you can play a
true perfect fifth on a violin.  I was in a band with a gifted violinist
who told me that he was always making his intervals pure, never equally
tempered.

If you haven't already done so, it's worth the effort to hear the
difference between an equally tempered fifth and a pure one, on the same
instrument if possible.  (That's the "sensible" rationale for microtuning.
My other one: what's so special about the mathematical ratios used in
Western tunings anyway?  There are more than 12 musically interesting
ratios.)


> The breadth of new music is countless idioms
> composed for this simple instrument is huge.

True.  This is a testament to the expressiveness of the instrument as a
solo voice.


> And yet nowadays, if our
> processor can't perform infinite combinations of voices that we can 
>switch
> between, we're not interested.  I'm not against processing - obviously, 
>or
> I'd not be here - but I do worry that our "ambient drone-guitar 
>noodlings"
> are little more than attempts to attract attention through novelty of 
>tone,
> rather than musical merit.

I think it's worth pointing out that keyboards and guitar are not the
expressive solo voices that a violin is.  On a violin or saxophone, a
single note without any electronic enhancement at all is capable of
expressing great feeling.  On unprocessed electric guitar and keyboards,
you play one note and it sort of goes, plonk.  Yeah, you can bend and add
vibrato on a guitar, but you still can't really convey the same sense of
effort required to sustain a tone that one hears from wind and string
instruments.  Would it be fair to say that what usually gets respect in
guitar and keyboard playing circles is the facility to put long strings of
interesting notes together, more than the ability to evoke a beautiful tone
of any one note?

What constitutes "musical merit," anyway?  Yeah, this is subjective.  To
me, sure, a beautiful tone and good technique, and yes, notes written on a
piece of paper can be discerned to have musical merit without even hearing
them performed well.  So musical merit comes both from the performer and
composer.

As a composer, I'm totally inspired by sound.  I look at it like this -- is
it easier to compose when staring at a blank piece of manuscript paper or
while playing my instrument?  When I create synthesizer patches I would
rather start editing from a randomly generated patch in which I can hear a
hint of something cool than from a raw sine wave.

To me, technology, like any technique (note similar etymologies) is just a
means to the end, not the end.  Every method of composing has its pitfalls
-- for me the dangers of composing in a traditional way are a certain
blocky-ness and difficulty in making transitions between disparate ideas.
And composing based on improvisations, while producing pieces with more
continuity, has the danger of producing meandering and unfocused pieces.
And yes, when using technology we can get distracted by it and forget the
point.  Similarly, when pursuing something interesting from a music theory
point of view, that focus has just as much danger of distracting us from
creating good music.

To return to what you said, there's nothing wrong with attracting attention
through novelty of tone.  Whatever floats the composer's boat.  The
question is really whether, after the novelty wears off after a few
listenings, the music still says something to you.


> After all, how many of us have actually sat down
> and _composed_ looping pieces, rather than just noodling?

An approach I used recently and really enjoyed was:  record long spacey
semi-droney improvisation with 2.7-second delay and less than 100% feedback
(partially loopy).  Chop it up and crossfade between phrases to remove the
less inspired parts and create more dramatic tonal and mood shifts.
Extract several repetitions of a nice loop, sample it, and crossfade from
the improv into the loop.  Compose a few minutes of stuff on top of this
loop and other phrases from the original improv.

At some level _everything_ is noodling ... when I compose I noodle until I
find something that sounds good, makes musical sense, says what I want it
to say, etc. etc.  Is "just" noodling trial and error with inadequate
editing?  To me "noodling" is a willingness to listen to the right
hemisphere, especially early in the process (the left hemisphere usually
gets plenty of chances to edit later on).

Doug


---
Doug Wyatt                     Sonosphere - music and music software
doug@sonosphere.com            http://www.sonosphere.com/