RE: blooping as fun

[Doug Wyatt <doug@sonosphere.com>]

At 21:58 -0500 2/10/98, Michael P. Hughes, Ph.D. wrote:
> Doug:
> >It's fascinating to me that you used the violin as an analogy with 
>which to
> >knock microtuning,
>
> I never knocked microtuning!  Did not!  Did not!   :)

Well, I remember the comment as quoting my statement about using other
tunings as new constraints and inspiration, then expressing amazement that
people weren't satisfied with the tonalities they already had.  :)


> >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.
>
> How did he sound when playing with the rest of the band?  <:o

I probably overamplified what he said.  When playing backing parts he would
probably adapt his tuning to the keyboards.  But I'm sure that when he's
playing in situations where he's way out in front, as he often is, he's
hearing his intervals as pure.  (I'm sure this is also true of vocalists
singing a cappella except in the most chromatic contexts.)  But of course
there's the joke about how to know when the violin player is out of tune
(he's moving his bow) and there's some truth to that too ... but this is
the real world; excessively perfect intonation on a vocal part reduces our
perception of the sound as being human.  Imperfection is cool.


> >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?

(To respond to someone else's comment, I didn't write this paragraph to
knock  keyboards and guitar ... merely to point out my dissatisfaction with
the traditional uses of these instruments, and point out where the road
leads when we play these instruments with an anti-technological bias.  Been
there.)


> I'm not objecting to electrifying interuments per se - I play an electric
> guitar after all.  In a way this has come about as an observation of my
> _own_ playing - I notice myself saying "Okay, I played with the neck 
>pickup
> last time around, so this loop I'd better switch to the bridge, and maybe
> roll up the tone, or turn on the ADL".  This is quite important if one is
> noodling (which I often do, natch) to prevent a complete mess.  But it 
>does
> bother me - after all many musical ensembles manage to play with 
>identical
> instruments playing different pieces and it sounds great.  I feel that
> being able to come up with valid musical statements with one voice is
> difficult - way beyond me, probably - but probably reflects a truer
> understanding of the instrument.

I play MIDI keyboards so my views are probably going to seem more
exaggerated, but, durn it, my entire keyboard technique can be expressed
with a very narrow little bit of bandwidth.  There are 61 notes on my
keyboard and I can strike them with 127 velocities (actually a lot fewer
than that because my DX7II is an old and lame controller that doesn't even
generate all 127 values).

To make expressive music with this gear I found it essential to discover
further means of controlling sound in realtime.  So I dabble with ways to
control the synthesis parameters on the fly and with processing the audio
after it exits the synths.  I learn to use the pitch wheel and various
other forms of control in ways that I like.

I think a less extreme form of what I'm saying here applies to guitar.
Guitar technique requires a fair bit more bandwidth to describe than
keyboard, but maybe still not as much as, say, trumpet, and nowhere nearly
as much as voice (I dare say).


> >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.
>
> Tone and technique play a role, but what makes a piece of music 
>compelling?
>  How important is melody, for example?

Depends on who's listening and what mood they're in.  And it depends on how
creative you are with the definition of a melody.  If you play a series of
chords on guitar or piano, the leading voice can be perceived as a melody.
Even a sample of unmusical noise can be perceived as having a melody,
especially if it's repeated along with something else that has pitches.


> I think it's probably synthesizers that most confuse me on this issue.  
>The
> violin, or piano, or oboe or whatever is unto itself - most players will
> have their one instrument and know it inside out.  However, with synth
> players the sounds are only as good as long as the synth is in vogue - 
>how
> many players (besides Eno) have decided to say "right, I've got a DX7 (or
> whatever), and I'm going to get everything I can from it."

And Paolo noted: "Pat Metheny has been using the same GR300 synth for about
15-17 years."  Yeah.  He's got a completely distinctive sound on that 
thing.

I think every synth sound is different when it comes to learning how to
solo with it.  There are a lot of sounds I can do things with, but there
are only a handful that I really feel completely open with -- and some of
them come from my DX7, which was my main axe 1984-1995 :)  I'm trying to
create a new set of sounds but it takes awhile and so sometimes I play that
DX7 sound.

There's also something there about letting the sound suggest the technique
with which it's to be played rather than using the same technique for every
sound.  Perhaps what's most precious amongst synthesists is the ability to
adapt one's keyboard (&/or other controller) technique in order to play the
sound expressively.  To me it's really friggin' hard and that's why I have
bread-and-butter sounds.


> >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.
>
> Exactly my point - sorry if I didn't express it well enough.

(no need to apologize, I just saw a big avenue to explore some of my
favorite topics :) )

> I mean,
> everyone's felt what it's like to get on a really inspiring piece of kit,
> me included.  But I've also listened basck to pieces I recorded with new
> kit (in an "ispired" frame of mind), only to find out I sounded like
> someone who's got a new toy but doesn't know what to do with it.

Well, shit happens :)  I'd go as far as to say that the main focus of my
musical approach right now is to try to find ways to get to that point of
being inspired by sound, capture improvisations on tape or in a sequencer,
and then compose with those bits.  At least 95% of what I record is crap.
But I find that the other 5% is what keeps me going.


> Sure; looped noodles can be inspiring (as well as the name of a tasty
> Chinese meal...?), but I feel that often we loopers are all too willing 
>to
> do our trial-and-error compositions in public.

I suspect this is a danger of improvised music in general, not just
looping.  (This weekend I recorded 180 minutes of group improvisations with
some friends and got perhaps 2 or 3 pieces, 6 to 10 minutes in length, that
might stand up to repeated listening.)  I haven't seen enough
trial-and-error looping in public to be able to agree with you're saying,
but I can imagine that the danger of an excessively static improvisation
could be increased by using loops.  Still, the rules of group improvisation
I like to play by include "improvise a form as you improvise each part;
don't be afraid to start something completely different."  (The other main
one being "don't be afraid to repeat yourself so that others can develop
parts to support yours."  Heh.)

Doug


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