Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!whizzo From: whizzo@mit-eddie.UUCP (David Hardy) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Volume Message-ID: <4461@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 13:43:24 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4461 Posted: Fri Jun 14 13:43:24 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 10:16:48 EDT References: <4450@mit-eddie.UUCP> Distribution: net.music Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 61 Keywords: Marcel Simon I'm not sure if this article is intended in jest or not, but if not I could not let something like this go by without learning how to post a reply. Doug Alan writes >I despise acoustic instruments Well, that is his right, just as it is mine to despise Motorhead and the like, so I can't say too much about that. > There is no such thing as music without volume. Therefore volume is the > essence of music and by extension music *is* volume. Huh? Perhaps there is no such thing as music without volume, but it is certainly not the same as saying that music *is* volume. I hear a lot of VOLUME everyday at work (people laughing, construction machines being used outside, subway trains, etc....) but this is certainly NOT MUSIC. Music certainly HAS volume but it is not JUST volume. > Music is never so alive as when played at 150+ decibels...The role of a > musician is to shape, mold, re-arrange your ears... Certainly. Music at 150+ decibels (I think) is past the danger zone for ear damage and will shape them right into mush, and the "whole feel of sounds you hear for the rest of your life" will probably be heard MOSTLY by feel :-). > Perhaps acoustic instruments are useful to composers alone in studios, > but they are worthless in music meant to sound and be alive. There is nothing more 'alive' than watching and listening to a live person play an acoustic instrument. They may not be particularly loud but they have a clarity and ambience that simply cannot be reproduced by electronics. For example, I recently saw the band Renaissance in concert. They did an all acoustic show, and used a HARP for some of their songs. This may have been amplified in some way, but a sound like that just can't be gotten any other way. > Music that uses acoustic instruments doesn't have any spice ... doesn't > make your ears hurt. Fortunately the acoustic music I've heard doesn't make my ears hurt. However a good performer can put plenty of 'spice' into music even on acoustic instruments without having to hide behind a lot of electronic induced effects, amplification, distortion, etc. > The greatest composer ever, Lemmy of Motorhead.... What happened to Kate Bush??? This one almost convinced me that this article was a satire after reading prior postings from Doug Alan. Well I guess I've rambled on long enough. I am certainly not one of those people who are against electronics and amplification, etc... I like many types of music, including loud music and music with drum machines. However I felt that I must jump in here in defense of acoustics. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction .................. Can be! " Dave Hardy (whizzo@mit-eddie) ARPA: whizzo@mit-eddie.ARPA -or- haadav%mitvma@mit-multics.ARPA CSNET: haadav%mitvma.bitnet@wiscvm.csnet BITNET: haadav@mitvma