Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: Henry Cow and Yes: polar opposites? (Ivan's turn)

Expand Messages
  • Keef
    ... Well there s a big difference between improvising and not being together, and a score specifically written that way. I copied several pieces for TJ
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Ivan said:

      > I certainly agree with you on this point in regards to
      > Otomo Yoshihide. As for Takayanagi, that's a
      > different ball of wax all together - as he *was* a
      > critic asking some very interesting questions of Jazz
      > (I've yet to read any good answers to his questions,
      > as they are pretty darned unique) during the 60s while
      > at the same time performing improvisations of his own.
      > The reason I brought Otomo & Masayuki up is because
      > of some of the scores that they have written
      > explicitly informing musicans *not* to listen to each
      > other.

      Well there's a big difference between improvising and not being
      together, and a score specifically written that way. I copied several
      pieces for TJ Anderson in which he says specifically "instruments do not
      have to be together, each part is its own independent tempo." And then
      there's a huge maze of hoops for the musicians to jump through on each
      score. It's interesting structurally, but it doesn't make for easy
      planning of a performance or easy rehearsal. My point is that if you
      have *improvs* someone's got to steer. People will go off on their own
      clouds but it's a musical game of catch. You're naturally going to want
      to make sense of what you're hearing so there's a compulsion to mimic
      what you're hearing around you, and some part of the improv is
      collectively improvised, never independent. There's so much more to it
      than just making a gesture, then another and another and seeing if they
      line up. One level of macrostructure is how long it's going to be.
      Another is which parts are at which dynamic level. Another is the range
      of the instrument. Another still is the vocabulary you're using ... if
      you're a saxophone player are you playing cleanly or split reed tones?
      Using multiphonics? These all go into developing an improv at some
      level ... then you have a microstructure ... you sit on one gesture and
      you vary the gesture like a Bach fugue. Then maybe you repeat the
      gesture and one tone gets a multiphonic note where before it got a clean
      one. Maybe you repeat the figure intentionally getting it to go out of
      phase with everyone else.

      >
      > > It's brilliant from an academic standpoint, but I
      > > seriously doubt
      > > they're going to make anything lasting or extremely
      > > memorable.
      >
      > Well, you seem to have a good recollection of
      > Stockhausen. Why shouldn't someone remember
      > Takayanagi's output? Yeah, that's right I'd place the
      > two on the same level of innovation. Seriously.

      My composition teacher in grad school was a pupil of Stockhausen's. In
      fact I got invited to work with Stockhausen but my professor said not to
      ... that I wouldn't get along with him on a personal level, considering
      that when I compose I try to take my ego out of it as much as possible,
      and accept what I come up with as finished once I've built it. After
      having met Stockhausen I'm convinced my teacher was right. But after
      having viewed many of his scores and studied the structures of them,
      there's plenty there that's memorable. I'd have to study Takayanagi
      more to find out his thrust. I don't necessarily think of Stockhausen
      as all that innovative, per se, because something caused him to think of
      those seemingly new structures.

      >
      > What
      > > will ultimately happen though I think is that it's
      > > going to expose the
      > > idea that you can only play what you know, and I'm
      > > not sure we've not
      > > treaded that ground already with AMM.
      >
      > What specifically do you find in the work of any
      > incarnation of AMM, that you cannot find in Aus den
      > sieben Tagen? Particularly Goldstaub?

      It's not a question of comparison ... AMM know their instruments and
      they know the range of the sonic soup that they can make. How loud it's
      going to be. They know what the limitations of their performance
      parameters are. They seem to turn inward to see how dense the sound can
      get before they lose who's making what sound -- at least that's what I
      get from Prevost's writings about it.

      > > Borbetomagus and noise artists? Exploring timbre.
      >
      > Well, what about the theatrical aspects of many of
      > these artists? Surely this goes beyong an exploration
      > of timbre - you make mention of such in your example
      > of Diamanda Galas.

      Couldn't say because most of them I've only been exposed to through
      recordings. I know I'm not getting the total picture, but that's how
      I'm their audience. But just the fact that the theatrical aspects are
      there and controlled suggests that once you get to that level of extreme
      sound you have to start over with something else, and in this case it
      would be the visual aspect of the performance.

      > I'm very curious as to what you make of noise in
      > realation to your comments regarding improvisation
      > going against one's nervous system. Seems from the
      > above comments (in that you turn the volume down) that
      > it is having something of an effect upon your's, or am
      > I misreading you?

      Improvisation itself doesn't go against the nervous system ....
      everyone's nervous system is wired to make organizational sense of of a
      series of sounds. When you go to improvise, you're already computing it
      whether you know it or not. The organisation might be anywhere in the
      parameters of the piece, but it's there, and you can't get rid of it.

      You can't step out of your nervous system. When you try you get nothing
      because the nervous system doesn't respond -- i.e. drop the lowest note
      of a piano an octave, and you might not hear it. Drop it another octave
      and you definitely won't. Drop it again and you start perceiving
      rhythm. Drop it again and you start perceiving larger chunks of time,
      and you can keep dropping it until you've exceeded your lifetime. One
      way perceive this phenomenon is tape a drum beat and let it get faster
      and faster and faster ... you'll hear the overall pitch rise until you
      no longer hear it as a drum, and then those frequencies get higher and
      higher until they reach over your threshold of hearing. Faster and
      faster and they turn into other sorts of waves that you perceive.
      Eventually you'll distort it before you can get it fast enough to become
      a radio wave. But there's a block there where you just can't perceive
      it unless you have something intervening .... like a photograph of an x-ray.

      > Ultimately I
      > > think of all this music as reinventing the wheel,
      > > trying to discover a
      > > new way to make certain bricks that hold up the
      > > house.
      >
      > Many of these artists, musicans, what have you - have
      > stated their desire to literally tear down any house,
      > or tradition so I really can't agree with your
      > assement here.

      That whole idea is complete folly and an utter waste of time. You'd
      have to be in isolation for your entire life to get close to it, and
      even then you wouldn't be that close. Remember how Cage went into a
      dead room at some university wanting to experience true silence, and
      when he did, he heard his nervous system ringing and his blood flowing?
      That's all the proof I need to consider those sorts of statements about
      tearing down any house or tradition being rather romantic, and the
      notion of a romantic artist isn't new at all. Those statements seem
      like PR to me to get like minded people to buy the noise. It's a very
      naive way to look at it, and when I hear someone say it, it makes me
      think that there's more than a little bullshit involved.

      >
      > Ha! That's a question I'm sure Richard Pinahs would
      > enjoy. Difference and repetition. Let's look at Karl
      > again, what did he do? Spiralled out, literally. So,
      > what do you make of Licht compared to his academic
      > works?

      Must know more about him to make an assessment.

      >
      > You did this, you found that, I got it.
      > > What am I going to
      > > do with it now that I got it?
      >
      > Revel in it, discard it, or file it under popular.

      No. It's going to go into my subconscious, and it's going to pop out
      when I'm looking for something to work in my pieces. It's going to be
      another tool, another piece of vocabulary, another thing that I can use
      to hold up the house.

      Keef.
    • kermandavid
      ... You d ... and ... a ... and ... flowing? ... about ... seem ... very ... me ... No. there s no bullshit about it. SOME people believe that: a) most things
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In avant-progressive@yahoogroups.com, Keef <k5rzr@n...> wrote:

        > >
        > > Many of these artists, musicans, what have you - have
        > > stated their desire to literally tear down any house,
        > > or tradition so I really can't agree with your
        > > assement here.
        >
        > That whole idea is complete folly and an utter waste of time.
        You'd
        > have to be in isolation for your entire life to get close to it,
        and
        > even then you wouldn't be that close. Remember how Cage went into
        a
        > dead room at some university wanting to experience true silence,
        and
        > when he did, he heard his nervous system ringing and his blood
        flowing?
        > That's all the proof I need to consider those sorts of statements
        about
        > tearing down any house or tradition being rather romantic, and the
        > notion of a romantic artist isn't new at all. Those statements
        seem
        > like PR to me to get like minded people to buy the noise. It's a
        very
        > naive way to look at it, and when I hear someone say it, it makes
        me
        > think that there's more than a little bullshit involved.
        >


        No. there's no bullshit about it. SOME people believe that:

        a) most things have indeed been played out (by modern, artistic
        standards, and
        b) those standards need to be "razed" in order to move ahead in
        these thoroughly conservative times.

        Most likely they aren't "naive". Most probably they're not full of
        "folly". And most definately they're not desperate enough for "PR"
        to compromise any stance. So from here it becomes a matter of
        subjective opinion as to whether or not they are "wasting their time".

        Surely, if one's plan were to tear down the house and build it
        up differently, using TRADITIONAL tools might negate any efficacious
        outcome. But what of the intrepid who would invent their own nails,
        or re-constitute the mortar ? Or re-invent the pestle ?

        I'd like to mildly remind you that almost all instances of human
        advancement have been a slap in the face to the "doubting thomases".
        Call me "naive", but I think/hope you're dead wrong.
      • Keef
        ... Real change happens from the inside. Wasn t it Crass who said No one ever changed a church by pulling down a steeple ? How about Sun Ra? At first,
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Ivan said:

          >
          > No. there's no bullshit about it. SOME people believe that:
          >
          > a) most things have indeed been played out (by modern, artistic
          > standards, and
          > b) those standards need to be "razed" in order to move ahead in
          > these thoroughly conservative times.
          >
          > Most likely they aren't "naive". Most probably they're not full of
          > "folly". And most definately they're not desperate enough for "PR"
          > to compromise any stance. So from here it becomes a matter of
          > subjective opinion as to whether or not they are "wasting their time".
          >
          > Surely, if one's plan were to tear down the house and build it
          > up differently, using TRADITIONAL tools might negate any efficacious
          > outcome. But what of the intrepid who would invent their own nails,
          > or re-constitute the mortar ? Or re-invent the pestle ?
          >
          > I'd like to mildly remind you that almost all instances of human
          > advancement have been a slap in the face to the "doubting thomases".
          > Call me "naive", but I think/hope you're dead wrong.


          Real change happens from the inside. Wasn't it Crass who said "No one
          ever changed a church by pulling down a steeple"? How about Sun Ra?
          "At first, there was Nothing! Then nothing turned itself inside out and
          became Something!" Variations on the same theme.

          When you just annihilate you end up with a blank slate. And then you
          have to draw upon something to rebuild. You either draw upon what you
          know or you reinvent the wheel. What those people who really want
          razing is enough change within something that they already know to
          easily present something in a new and different form readily packaged
          for them.

          Think of Einstuerzende Neubauten. When they first came on the scene
          their thing was brand new to a lot of people, but if you watch them,
          here are people who are relying on fairly traditional drumming
          techniques at least some of the time, in the form of a rock band. I
          remember when I first heard Five On The Open Ended Richter Scale
          thinking, you know, they don't sound so strange anymore after all. And
          their PR was very much "must destroy to create change." And now they
          use string quartets and traditional notation in conjunction with their
          previous ideas to get their ideas across (check the booklet to Tabula
          Rasa for an example of one of their scores). It was this realisation
          that got me thinking about it.

          I can think of several things off the top of my head that we do *NOT*
          have artistically, very little evidence of their existing in modern
          pieces, and I'll be damned if I can solve the problems: But that
          doesn't stop me from trying.

          Instrument A plays at one metronomic rate, and has a rallentando;
          instrument B plays at still another metronomic rate and has an
          accelerando, and at one point they converge and play together, in tempo,
          in sync. You need to specify which points they converge on along the
          way, and lay it out so that the sounds that occur are represented
          mathematically to scale, in such a way that any musician studying your
          piece will know exactly what you mean. (The Grateful Dead and Frank
          Zappa have done things something like this, but theirs were happy
          accidents -- they didn't control what was happening along the way.
          Conlon Nancarrow has several studies for player piano like this, and
          he's come closest but he didn't ever find a way to notate it.)

          I would love to write an insane tuplet in which, on an odd
          tuplet-crotchet, the downbeat of the following measure occurs. Say a
          bar of 2 7/13 // 4, followed by an ordinary bar of 3/4. There's no
          clear way to represent that either. You can approximate it
          mathematically by shifting tempo for one bar, but you risk error in
          performance unless you perform in artificially, because it is impossible
          for the human body to shift a tempo without a small rallentando or
          accelerando at the shifting point. When you hear this jarring rhythm,
          your ear will perceive it as a "bad edit"..

          My own body is incapable of playing so called simple tuplets correctly,
          solo. I cannot play a decent 5:7 ratio for instance. I have immense
          trouble feeling it. If I create it artificially I can identify it as
          correct but getting it together in a traditional format is beyond my
          muscle control. Never mind adding a 3rd ratio in a third voice to a
          piano piece, as in 5:7:11. It does create a stunning sound, but I find
          it impossible to perform, so I've never heard it with the nuances that
          make piano music so interesting to me.

          My experiments in this area, actually laying it down on tape (not an
          impossibility, but actually notating it and documenting it in a clear,
          concise form *is* an impossibility with our current system) show that
          this is a very natural sound, exciting and full of a tension previously
          unheard in music, especially when you start using it as an
          orchestrational colouring method. It sounds something like phasing but
          on a macrostructural level.

          Another thing I can think of off the top of my head that we have not
          fully explored (though Harry Partch made incredible inroads) is an
          alternate tuning system based on more than 12 to the octave that is
          natural, standardised, and fully accepted as the well tempered system,
          with a direct way to notate it based on the current system (I feel
          Partch's notation system was notoriously lacking in many areas, because
          he was locked into the current notation system of five lines, four
          spaces, seven lines and spaces to the octave -- he wrote in approximate
          pitches in well tempered systems with ratios underneath -- it sort of
          gets his point across but it does NOT show the true melodic curve. And
          he complained bitterly about not being able to solve this problem).
          There is some concept of consonance and dissonance in Partch's tuning
          systems, but this avenue is yet to be explored fully by anyone. Work
          still continues by several microtonal composers, but we're not even *close*.

          We do not have standardised ways to notate percussion, at all. Every
          composer has his own method. I borrowed mine heavily from Varese.

          How about recording? It is still impossible to record rain or thunder
          properly -- the sound that you hear on a recording that you identify as
          rain and thunder is vastly different from the sound that you hear in
          nature. It is *almost* impossible to record the sound of wind
          turbulence, although you can reflect that. How about a sonic boom?
          Can't record that either. In the science of sound reproduction we're
          about 50% of the way to what the human ear is truly capable of.

          How about singing? The sound that you hear in your head when you simply
          speak is vastly different from the sound that another person identifies
          as your voice. I would love to hear what Yoko Ono or Diamanda Galas
          hears in *their* heads when they sing.

          The answer is not attacking it from the outside -- it's change from the
          inside, and enough change, and embracing of difficulties in your field,
          will present something completely new. This is how any of the
          academic musicians (Stockhausen, Berio, Xenakis, etc. etc. ad infinitum)
          manage to sound so different and unique and come across as true visionaries.

          Keef.








          --
          Buy LPs!!! Buy CDs!!! Just BUY!!!
          keefycub.gemm.com
        • Michael Feathers
          K How about singing? The sound that you hear in your head when you simply K speak is vastly different from the sound that another person identifies K as
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            K> How about singing? The sound that you hear in your head when you simply
            K> speak is vastly different from the sound that another person identifies
            K> as your voice. I would love to hear what Yoko Ono or Diamanda Galas
            K> hears in *their* heads when they sing.

            Keef, you're a great writer. You're close to convincing me that music
            is futile ;-)
          • Michael Feathers
            ... k You d ... k and ... k a ... k and ... k flowing? ... k about ... k seem ... k very ... k me ... I wouldn t attribute any motive to it. To me,
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              k> --- In avant-progressive@yahoogroups.com, Keef <k5rzr@n...> wrote:
              >> >
              >> > Many of these artists, musicans, what have you - have
              >> > stated their desire to literally tear down any house,
              >> > or tradition so I really can't agree with your
              >> > assement here.
              >>
              >> That whole idea is complete folly and an utter waste of time.
              k> You'd
              >> have to be in isolation for your entire life to get close to it,
              k> and
              >> even then you wouldn't be that close. Remember how Cage went into
              k> a
              >> dead room at some university wanting to experience true silence,
              k> and
              >> when he did, he heard his nervous system ringing and his blood
              k> flowing?
              >> That's all the proof I need to consider those sorts of statements
              k> about
              >> tearing down any house or tradition being rather romantic, and the
              >> notion of a romantic artist isn't new at all. Those statements
              k> seem
              >> like PR to me to get like minded people to buy the noise. It's a
              k> very
              >> naive way to look at it, and when I hear someone say it, it makes
              k> me
              >> think that there's more than a little bullshit involved.

              I wouldn't attribute any motive to it. To me, it is a focusing device.
              It's an attempt to clear the plate. The plate is never really clear,
              but when you pull the obvious things out you have a better chance of
              tapping into what you've integrated into yourself and doing something
              with it.

              I use the device in my work (which isn't music) and as long as it
              works, I won't call it bullshit.
            • Ivan Lapse
              Whoa there! Ivan did not say anything of the sort, your response is more properly directed toward David Kerman - or someone pretending to be David Kerman.
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Whoa there! Ivan did not say anything of the sort,
                your response is more properly directed toward David
                Kerman - or someone pretending to be David Kerman.

                Ivan thanks you for your intriguing perspectives and
                is respecfully moving on from this thread.

                Cheers,

                Ivan

                >>"kermandavid" <dkerman@a...> wrote:<<

                --- Keef <k5rzr@...> wrote:
                > Ivan said:


                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                http://shopping.yahoo.com
              • kermandavid
                ... time . ... efficacious ... nails, ... thomases . ... one ... Ra? ... out and ... you ... you ... want ... packaged ... To this I ll say, mildly, that to
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In avant-progressive@yahoogroups.com, Keef <k5rzr@n...> wrote:
                  > Ivan said:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > No. there's no bullshit about it. SOME people believe that:
                  > >
                  > > a) most things have indeed been played out (by modern, artistic
                  > > standards, and
                  > > b) those standards need to be "razed" in order to move ahead in
                  > > these thoroughly conservative times.
                  > >
                  > > Most likely they aren't "naive". Most probably they're not full of
                  > > "folly". And most definately they're not desperate enough for "PR"
                  > > to compromise any stance. So from here it becomes a matter of
                  > > subjective opinion as to whether or not they are "wasting their
                  time".
                  > >
                  > > Surely, if one's plan were to tear down the house and build it
                  > > up differently, using TRADITIONAL tools might negate any
                  efficacious
                  > > outcome. But what of the intrepid who would invent their own
                  nails,
                  > > or re-constitute the mortar ? Or re-invent the pestle ?
                  > >
                  > > I'd like to mildly remind you that almost all instances of human
                  > > advancement have been a slap in the face to the "doubting
                  thomases".
                  > > Call me "naive", but I think/hope you're dead wrong.
                  >
                  >
                  > Real change happens from the inside. Wasn't it Crass who said "No
                  one
                  > ever changed a church by pulling down a steeple"? How about Sun
                  Ra?
                  > "At first, there was Nothing! Then nothing turned itself inside
                  out and
                  > became Something!" Variations on the same theme.
                  >
                  > When you just annihilate you end up with a blank slate. And then
                  you
                  > have to draw upon something to rebuild. You either draw upon what
                  you
                  > know or you reinvent the wheel. What those people who really
                  want
                  > razing is enough change within something that they already know to
                  > easily present something in a new and different form readily
                  packaged
                  > for them.


                  To this I'll say, mildly, that to "assume" what other people may or
                  may not want will not fully aid you to understand what they might
                  actually be after.

                  By example: I will guarantee you that I would feel the need
                  to abandon all preconceptions, conditionings, accomplishments,
                  structures forms, tunings etc. if I were to begin a fruitful step
                  towards veritable progression. Please then, don't suppose that what
                  "I really want" might be something easily presented to me in a new a
                  different form.


                  > Think of Einstuerzende Neubauten. When they first came on the
                  scene
                  > their thing was brand new to a lot of people, but if you watch
                  them,
                  > here are people who are relying on fairly traditional drumming
                  > techniques at least some of the time, in the form of a rock band.
                  I
                  > remember when I first heard Five On The Open Ended Richter Scale
                  > thinking, you know, they don't sound so strange anymore after all.
                  And
                  > their PR was very much "must destroy to create change." And now
                  they
                  > use string quartets and traditional notation in conjunction with
                  their
                  > previous ideas to get their ideas across (check the booklet to
                  Tabula
                  > Rasa for an example of one of their scores). It was this
                  realisation
                  > that got me thinking about it.
                  >

                  Sorrily, I don't find your examples to be any sort of paradigm.
                  There is a big difference between being radical within an artform,
                  and wishing to destroy it completely as a means to rebuild from
                  scratch. The latter stance, while philosophically sound, poses a
                  difficult conundrum, while the former is mostly reactionary.

                  Neubauten, for example, were reactionary. They were neither unique,
                  nor especially talented in any way which might have embellished a
                  sense of artistic empiricism. They were mistaken (or perhaps over-
                  estimating their own abilities) to believe that by destroying things
                  in a physical sense, that they were able to dismantle the intangible
                  properties of art. This is merely my own opinion; no doubt many
                  would disagree. I would, however, commend them for giving it a damn
                  good try, at least in some instances. I saw them out in the middle of
                  the Mojave Desert in 1983, and would say that their spirit was
                  amazing.


                  > I can think of several things off the top of my head that we do
                  *NOT*
                  > have artistically, very little evidence of their existing in modern
                  > pieces, and I'll be damned if I can solve the problems: But that
                  > doesn't stop me from trying.
                  >

                  As well it shouldn't, in my opinion. And guys like myself would
                  wish you the best of luck, rather than opine that you might be
                  naive, folly-ful, or after PR. (smiles and winks)


                  > Instrument A plays at one metronomic rate, and has a rallentando;
                  > instrument B plays at still another metronomic rate and has an
                  > accelerando, and at one point they converge and play together, in
                  tempo,
                  > in sync. You need to specify which points they converge on along
                  the
                  > way, and lay it out so that the sounds that occur are represented
                  > mathematically to scale, in such a way that any musician studying
                  your
                  > piece will know exactly what you mean. (The Grateful Dead and
                  Frank
                  > Zappa have done things something like this, but theirs were happy
                  > accidents -- they didn't control what was happening along the way.
                  > Conlon Nancarrow has several studies for player piano like this,
                  and
                  > he's come closest but he didn't ever find a way to notate it.)


                  Notation, theory, rules...they've all been played to the hilt in
                  some people's opinion; Maybe this isn't far enough a stylistic change
                  to make a true advancement. Even the most disassociated form of
                  notation I can think of offhand (Bouchourechliev's "Archipelagos")
                  is still notation, and as such, "sounds" notated, both because
                  of our ability to discern synchronized rhythm and the fact that it
                  is played in real time.


                  > I would love to write an insane tuplet in which, on an odd
                  > tuplet-crotchet, the downbeat of the following measure occurs.
                  Say a
                  > bar of 2 7/13 // 4, followed by an ordinary bar of 3/4. There's no
                  > clear way to represent that either. You can approximate it
                  > mathematically by shifting tempo for one bar, but you risk error in
                  > performance unless you perform in artificially, because it is
                  impossible
                  > for the human body to shift a tempo without a small rallentando or
                  > accelerando at the shifting point. When you hear this jarring
                  rhythm,
                  > your ear will perceive it as a "bad edit"..
                  >
                  > My own body is incapable of playing so called simple tuplets
                  correctly,
                  > solo. I cannot play a decent 5:7 ratio for instance. I have
                  immense
                  > trouble feeling it. If I create it artificially I can identify it
                  as
                  > correct but getting it together in a traditional format is beyond
                  my
                  > muscle control. Never mind adding a 3rd ratio in a third voice to
                  a
                  > piano piece, as in 5:7:11. It does create a stunning sound, but I
                  find
                  > it impossible to perform, so I've never heard it with the nuances
                  that
                  > make piano music so interesting to me.




                  To me, all of what you mention is within the parameters of previous
                  accomplishments inasmuch as your aspirations (interesting as they may
                  be) begin from a point of "building" FROM someplace quite before you
                  have destroyed the working theories which constrain them. Your own
                  abilities/inabilities (or mine, or anyone else's for that matter) are
                  irrelevant to the task of actually dismembering the essence of known
                  rules as a means to a clear starting point.



                  >
                  > My experiments in this area, actually laying it down on tape (not
                  an
                  > impossibility, but actually notating it and documenting it in a
                  clear,
                  > concise form *is* an impossibility with our current system) show
                  that
                  > this is a very natural sound, exciting and full of a tension
                  previously
                  > unheard in music, especially when you start using it as an
                  > orchestrational colouring method. It sounds something like phasing
                  but
                  > on a macrostructural level.
                  >
                  > Another thing I can think of off the top of my head that we have
                  not
                  > fully explored (though Harry Partch made incredible inroads) is an
                  > alternate tuning system based on more than 12 to the octave that is
                  > natural, standardised, and fully accepted as the well tempered
                  system,
                  > with a direct way to notate it based on the current system (I feel
                  > Partch's notation system was notoriously lacking in many areas,
                  because
                  > he was locked into the current notation system of five lines, four
                  > spaces, seven lines and spaces to the octave -- he wrote in
                  approximate
                  > pitches in well tempered systems with ratios underneath -- it sort
                  of
                  > gets his point across but it does NOT show the true melodic curve.
                  And
                  > he complained bitterly about not being able to solve this
                  problem).
                  > There is some concept of consonance and dissonance in Partch's
                  tuning
                  > systems, but this avenue is yet to be explored fully by anyone.
                  Work
                  > still continues by several microtonal composers, but we're not even
                  *close*.
                  >
                  > We do not have standardised ways to notate percussion, at all.
                  Every
                  > composer has his own method. I borrowed mine heavily from Varese.
                  >
                  > How about recording? It is still impossible to record rain or
                  thunder
                  > properly -- the sound that you hear on a recording that you
                  identify as
                  > rain and thunder is vastly different from the sound that you hear
                  in
                  > nature. It is *almost* impossible to record the sound of wind
                  > turbulence, although you can reflect that. How about a sonic
                  boom?
                  > Can't record that either. In the science of sound reproduction
                  we're
                  > about 50% of the way to what the human ear is truly capable of.
                  >



                  At this point I'm going to steer you towards Thom Dimuzio's work, if
                  you are not already familiar with it. He has a wonderful sonic
                  discography, much of which has surpassed the 50% range (which you
                  allude to) by a far degree. From my porch during a torrential
                  downpour,he recorded a track for the Recommended Quarterly which will
                  prove your theory about such sonic limitations incorrect.

                  I believe that the greatest current constraint with regards to
                  recorded material is not the limitations of technology per se, but
                  the human penchant to use a plethora of advancements available to
                  merely recreate "perfect high-fidelity" sounds. Technology may soon
                  prove to be a saving grace, once it becomes integrated into a theory
                  which uses it to truly destroy/create, rather than to expound.




                  How about singing? The sound that you hear in your head when you
                  simply
                  > speak is vastly different from the sound that another person
                  identifies
                  > as your voice. I would love to hear what Yoko Ono or Diamanda
                  Galas
                  > hears in *their* heads when they sing.


                  > The answer is not attacking it from the outside -- it's change from
                  the
                  > inside, and enough change, and embracing of difficulties in your
                  field,
                  > will present something completely new.


                  You the optimist; I the defeatest. Both after the same thing ?
                  Coming from opposite ends of the spectrum ?


                  This is how any of the
                  > academic musicians (Stockhausen, Berio, Xenakis, etc. etc. ad
                  infinitum)
                  > manage to sound so different and unique and come across as true
                  visionaries.
                  >



                  But they WERE visionaries, past-tense. Where are their worthy
                  successors in THIS day and age ?

                  DK
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.