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,net.music.synth
Subject: Re: Drum Machines - A Flame
Message-ID: <336@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 20:10:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.336
Posted: Tue Jun  4 20:10:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 03:01:23 EDT
References: <317@mhuxr.UUCP> <979@pyuxd.UUCP> <320@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 99
Xref: watmath net.music:7781 net.music.synth:301

> > Rhythm is at the core of all music. [ME]
> > As a result, interpretation is everything.
> > The subtle shadings and shifts of emphasis that are the interpretive
> > devices of classical musicians are rhythmic in nature.
> 
> Any and all of those variations and interpretations can be demonstrated in
> electronic rhythm machines.  Who is to say that the emphasis in music should
> be on the player's "interpretation"/alteration of the original intentions
> of the composer.  Who better than the original composer to decide how he/she
> wants the music to be played? 

What happens when the composer is dead? You imply that only the composer
of a piece can play or conduct it. Clearly absurd. Besides, the composer
may *intentionally* leave room for interpretation. Listen to John Cage,
who allows players the freedom to state his written notes with whatever
inflections they desire.

> machine doesn't get to interpret!  A Linn or a Drumulator or whatever isn't
> designed to be an AI project.  It's designed to be a recording/notational
> system of laying out a drum part to be reproduced as the composer intended.
> The ability to "interpret" only adds to the experience of the player, it
> doesn't *necessarily* add to the listener's experience in hearing what the
> composer had in mind, which IS the bottom line.

So in your world, all readings of a piece would be exactly alike, "aas the
composer intended." How dull! You seek to remove from performance
all traces of the player's personality. Why should any musician be
interested in playing a piece when there is no incentive to see it
any differently than anyone else who may have played it before?

> > The core of any successful composition, classical or otherwise, is
> > rhythmic.
> 
> That's funny, I always thought the core of a piece of music WAS the harmonic
> content.  Perhaps that's based on what type of music I listen to.  Perhaps
> your emphasis is based on the type of music YOU listen to and the way you
> listen to it.  Personal value judgments, not factual truths about music.

Harmony seeks to quantize music, a sound continuum, in [arbitrary] discrete
steps. Harmony establishes [arbitrary] rules about acceptable
and unacceptable relationships between notes. The history of music is
one of new generations pushing against the limits imposed by the
accepted harmonic rules of their day.

Rhythm, on the other hand, pervades all music. There can be aharmonic
and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music.
Stating that the core of a piece is its harmonic content is like
saying that the meaning of a language is the way it is spelled.
These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range
of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine;
state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk.
Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK?

> Crock!  Rhythm is one of many elements that make up "successful" music, and
> it happens to be the one YOU personally place the most emphasis on.  Fine.
> I state again, in your above paragraph you place particular emphasis on
> jazz improvisatory technique when you speak of interplay the way you do.

True, many elements make up successful music, but rhythm is the MOST
central among them. You have said nothing that refutes that. In fact
you have said little that refutes my points in all your postings. For
example, your posting responds to an article where none of the examples
had anything to do with jazz. Yet you go claim that all I am looking for is
jazz improvisation.  Read what I say, damnit!

> You still sound no different
> from someone who complains about those "new-fangled eelectronic gizmos",
> because they don't produce "natural" sound.  His prejudice and emphasis are
> just as arbitrary as yours.

Give me a break!!!!! I have said nothing about sound, natural or otherwise.
I object to drum machines because they lack rhythmic life, not because
of the way they sound!!!!! Go back and reread all my postings on this matter.
Now go back and read them again. There is not a SINGLE mention of "natural
sound" among them. PLEASE do not resort to the sophistry you deplore
in other newsgroups.

> > Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like.
> > Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting,
> > lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does
> > the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to
> > all these questions is no.
> 
> For you, the answer is no, because of the way you choose to listen to music.
> Don't assume that that's true for everyone.  GIVEN your emphasis, I think
> it unlikely that you could ever like a piece performed with a "drum machine".
> (Unless, of course, you listened to a piece without knowing, or caring,
> how the sound was made, and only found out afterwards.  Which is my whole
> point:  it doesn't matter HOW the sounds are made, what matters is WHAT sounds
> are made and how they affect the listener.  To decide in advance "Oh, this
> uses a Flurrmnifizer so it must be awful" is blatantly prejudicial.)

Skip the bullshit and do the experiment. Try and do it in good
faith (That may be impossible for you :-) Now am I right or am I wrong?
If I am wrong, how so? Let us discuss it. But do not give me any nonsense
about my musical prejudices. You have demonstrated little tolerance
yourself.

Marcel Simon