Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.synth Subject: Re: Drum Machines - A Flame Message-ID: <1056@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 22:56:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1056 Posted: Wed Jun 5 22:56:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 07:07:25 EDT References: <317@mhuxr.UUCP> <979@pyuxd.UUCP> <320@mhuxr.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 136 Xref: watmath net.music:7797 net.music.synth:303 >>> Rhythm is at the core of all music. >>> 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. [SIMON] >>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? [ROSEN] > 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. [SIMON] I imply no such thing. Your stating that I do is absurd. A composer who "leaves room for [such] interpretation" is not composing, he is providing a framework in which others get to compose as they perform. >>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? In "my" world, all readings of a book are exactly the same, they have the same words, the same pages, the same illustrations, etc. Yet each time you read the book, it affects you differently. "How dull" you say? The challenge of being a performer is in the discipline of evoking the intent of the composer through one's performance, as an actor does in theatrical performance. Performers who make such vivacious interpretations that they have a characteristic all their own is in fact composing variations on the composer's "theme". >>> 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? I answered this section in replying to Tom Duff's followup article, which showed that there is indeed arhythmic music, and that rhythm is indeed just one of many components, but the one that Mr. Simon sees as most important as part of his personal taste, as is his right as a human being. >>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. > True, many elements make up successful music, but rhythm is the MOST > central among them. You have said nothing that refutes that. But you've said nothing to PROVE that, so why I am obliged to provide evidence to DISPROVE it? It is but ONE element of music, and it is your favorite element. Mine is harmony. That is why you get off on your favorite music and I get off on Ives' "Central Park in the Dark", Brian Wilson's "Caroline No", and most of the output of Claude Debussy and the early work of Stravinsky. You've given no evidence that proves your personal taste is an absolute. >>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. I doesn't matter what you have stated as your objection to them, your objection still SOUNDS the same as the person I described above. In both cases, the judgment is being made about the instrument in advance, rather than judging by the end result, which is ALL that matters. >>> 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? You're wrong, because I'm the one who already likes music with and without "drum machines". The experiment is yours to perform. Listen to a set of music with and without rhythm machines or whatever, and decide which you like and don't like based on how they sound, not on whether or not you think they use the dreaded machines. I'll help provide a choice of music if you like. > 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. Oh, please, refrain from the name calling! (I had to edit quite a bit of it out.) Musical prejudices are not nonsense. We all have musical tastes and peccadillos, but some of us try not to let them get in the way of prejudicing their view of the sound. Then again, some of us don't bother trying. I always had the impression that you were one of the former group and not the latter. -- "If you offend everybody, you're doing a good job." --David Steinberg on the subject of satire Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr