Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Volume
Message-ID: <359@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 18:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.359
Posted: Thu Jun 20 18:01:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 01:23:32 EDT
References: <4450@mit-eddie.UUCP> <353@mhuxr.UUCP> <1099@pyuxd.UUCP> <356@mhuxr.UUCP> <1105@pyuxd.UUCP>
Distribution: net.music
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 92

> Volume AND rhythm (your fave) are BOTH
> the *single* most important element in music?  Remind me not to take your
> logic class. :-)

I never said rhythm is the single most important element in music.
I did say that rhythm is at the core of successful music.

I extend slightly the dictionary definition of rhythm. I take rhythm to be
that quality of music that differentiates the note I play today from the
same note someone else played yesterday. We are talking about the same note
so improvisation is not the issue here. Rather, whatever inflections that
differentiate Isaac Stern from Yo-Yo Ma or Vladimir Horowitz from Gerald
Eskenazy, *while they are playing the same piece*. In that sense,
any note played by on a non electronic instrument will have rhythmic
qualities. Since there are touch sensitive synthesizers around, notes played
on them will have rhythmic qualities.

In fact, taken in the strictest possible way, an arrhythmic piece would
consist of a single note, played by some electronic instrument, and held
continuously, sort of like the 40 second end of the Beatles' "Day in the Life."
The dictionary defines rhythm as the pattern made by groups of notes
so any multitone or multi instrument piece would have rhythmic qualities.

What someone chooses to fix upon as the single most important element
in a given piece is a matter of opinion. I make the argument that a successful
piece, whatever the criterion for success, will *also* be found to be rhythmically
successful. Conversely, I also believe that an unsuccessful piece,
however unsuccessful is defined (a matter of opinion) will *also* be
rhythmically unsuccessful.

WHy is that? Well, rhythm marks the passage of Time. This can happen in
some repeated manner, giving us a meter or time signature, or it may not.
Rhythmic success keeps us interested in what is coming next. Someone
posted an article noting that the disco beat, although irresistible,
is intellectually unchallenging. Quite true. It's sort of like a
pitcher's fastball. Speed (the beat) is important, but the excellence
of a fastball pitcher is not speed (the beat) alone but movement.
Does the fastball rise or dip, tail away or into the batter? Likewise,
Time cannot pass in flat fashion. It must keep moving. The degree to which
it moves, essentially, is a measure of rhythmic success.

Jazz is a discipline where the above conditions are most easily
heard. But others meet it as well: look at the highly personal breath dynamics
of Japanese shakuhachi music; the abrupt variations of internote spaces in Japanese
koto music. From another angle, King Crimson's "Thela Hun Ginjeet" is
built on he basic disco beat; but Levin and Bruford dance around it,
leaning hard on off beats, placing accents at odd places, and generally
creating the challenge to and support for the guitar acrobatics happening
above them.

Rereading the above, I realize all of this is really intangible and hard
to pin down. I hope it makes sense to others.
> 
> Passionate argument has its virtues to be sure.  But you claimed in all your
> articles that YOUR particular opinion (about rhythm) was not just opinion,
> but fact.  This is where we parted company.  Rhythm is most important TO YOU.
> Good.  As long as we can agree on that.  (Uh, oh, agreement. Better get
> the flame thrower...)
> 
I think everything I said above is observable by others. I'd be curious
to hear opinions on how other people hear Time go by in a piece.

> Music is just a label we put on a particular type of artistic endeavor,
> almost always meaning that that endeavor is in the realm of sound.  Music
> that does not involve sound could thus be said not to be music but perhaps
> some other form of art.  Even Cage's infamous 4'33" is specifically designed
> to make use of the sound remaining in the concert hall or wherever after
> you've gotten past the silence.
> 
No disagreement here (Oh my God, Rosen and I just agreed. Mark this day in
history :-) Some wise person once said something about music being the
organization of noise.

> > Since great dynamic
> > range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine.
> > No wonder I agree with him!
> 
> Say what?  Could someone versed in the foundations of propositional logic run
> that by me again?  Marcel, he was only kidding, dammit!

I think the net needs some indicator of the chuckle, to mean "I see the
game but I am going along with it", which was my intent here. How about ~:~ ?

> What's a non-acoustic instrument? (If you mean "electronic", you're going
> to run out of percussion and rhythm awful fast, Marcel, since percussion
> instruments other than drum machines qualify as acoustic instruments.  Oh
> well, it was a nice project while it lasted... :-)

Why don't I let Alan define non-acoustic intruments? That's his area (~:~)
> Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

Marcel Simon