hello, happy sunday, & welcome to the premier edition of /future classical/ AKA /ask an avant garde motherfucker/
this is a test to see if there's any interest in starting an open roundtable discussion/composers circle on
>/alternative forms, processeces, structures & philosophies for experimental approaches into musical composition/
bluntly put, looking for folks who are working up on high on the tops of this pyramid; regions that in order to inhabit necessitate a nonstandard model for music-making. obviously, the pyramid doesn't cover every single approach imaginable, but then if you've got the stones to have paved your own way and are able to communicate your ideas that makes you all the more a fit here. don't know how much overlap to expect, so post what you work in and post some the sort of shit that you're interested about.
psychoacoustic discussions and meta-musical topics such as: what is music? what is subjective/objective? what is taste? what is musical purity? does this list goes on? are encouraged.
all ages/power levels welcome; come to discuss, come to listen, come to defend or argue the merits of some system over some other, come to ask questions, come to learn about the artistic principles & musical paradigms of others & inadvertently come to better understand your own. just don't come to drop a soundcloud link to your 'glitch hop with trap, chillwave, and idm influence' project because you WILL get memed on
worst case scenario: if no one worth talking with shows up, i can and will for 300 shitposts fite you on the musical politics of the standard western model. so if diminished chords saved your life or you think learning to voice lead is the best thing that could ever happen to somebody and you see this thread isn't doing too well then come at me all you uber conservative reactionary ""music" theory" brahs
right then, here I go
>primarily work within
generative & minimal electronics, machine music/improvisation, minimal/no-input, totalism, process music
spectralism, serialism, microsound, techno
>only goof with really
musicological & urban field recordings
>Which Type(s) are you?
Type I (French Chanson, Art Pop, Ambient, Prog. Rock)
Type II (Sacred Minimalism, Baroque Classical Era, Renaissance, Krautrock, Impressionism, Freak Folk, and Neo-Folk)
Type III (Free Jazz, Musique Concrete, Avant-Garde Jazz, and Avant-Folk)
Type IV (Sprectralism)
Type V (Sonorism and Stochasticism)
all music is timely vibrations. the most rudimentary ideas of pitch and rhythm both are based on simple frequency. you can't however have one without the other
an object that vibrates at a frequency for a nonexistent period of time yields nothing
an object that does not vibrate at any frequency for an nonzero period of time also yields nothing
we can conclude that
the intersection between pitch and rhythm
pitch and harmony extended
rhythm and structure extended
are these discussions worth having? hell if I know
In this order: Everything by Jacques Brel, Fantaise Militaire by Alain Bashung, Balade de Melody Nelson by Serge Gainsbourg and then the rest by Serge. From there on I would like to expand in every facet of Chansons
I support this venture. I'm interested in New Complexity, Sonorism, Spectralism and most branches of art music. Ethnomusicology is based as well, not sure if its on the chart or not.
bump with some new complexity I guess
and a couple of nice spectralist pieces:
That's /mu/ overall for you.
From 'future classical' to 'art' rock, 'baroque pop' and calling bands/artists experimental or avant-garde it gives the underage kids a self esteem boost.
tonality in general just freaks me out as an area of study. it's (arguably) infinitely as deep as you'd want it to be. I wouldn't even know where to start in looking for alternate tuning systems.
luckily in my work, I've been able to simplify out complex harmony by just barring it to the greatest extent possible.
poly I know you do orchestral sample-based prototypes in FL but do you fuxx with your own sound design too? to what extent does your understandings of sonorism and spectralism guide you in that?
you ever (you probably) just wild out in piano roll or what?
>Ethnomusicology is based as well, not sure if its on the chart or not.
that's cool, I'm into 'functional music' but that's not listed either. ethnomusicology is ill, tho I've gotta admit it's mostly the "post-African repetitions" that I'm into lol
is 'eurhythmics' something that falls under the umbrella field of ethnomusicology? I had a friend who was doing a music degree, I remember him mentioning something about that but I may've gotten terms crossed
ps thanks for having my back, back of my mind I was hoping you might ctrl+f "classical" and hit this thread
>the art of harmonious bodily movement especially through expressive timed movements in response to improvised music
nvm, eurythmics sounds like some grade A extramusical bullshit
>what is verticality & horizontality in regards to music?
well do you make generative music for an explicit compositional purpose or more for like seeing what would happen if you took the html from your instagram feed and you fed it into sylenth?
because only one of these things is a way of life while the other thing is, how you say, meme generative
Well, the former if you want to put it like that. I like comparing different approaches to generative music and computer-assisted composition, primarily with MaxMSP. It's been a while since I last did it though.
It's an interesting way to write music, and though it can be headache-inducing at times (my knowledge of programming pretty much starts and ends with Max) it always gives me totally different results then anything I would "traditionally" compose.
This is the avant-garde album of the year prove me wrong
>I like comparing different approaches to generative music and computer-assisted composition
my thoughts exactly. like, in order to make generative music, you have to commit to some model of music. I like the most about this is that it gives the music a more concrete construction that transcends the usual sort of moment-by-moment sequencing of sound... even if the effect is totally indiscernible from just plain listening to it. I think every decision you're presented with is a chance for error, and that drives my search towards more robust musical models and stronger compositional algorithms.
sweet stuff but my ummm, 'version' never could save my patches proper so I had to move to Puredata but its basically the same
>my knowledge of programming pretty much starts and ends with Max
personally I'm an advocate for learning more programming. Max (as well as puredata) can be extended with programs written in C or Java. being a visual sort of language, Max is sort of limited in what it can do, but being able to supplement it with actual code is a very powerful feature
>it always gives me totally different results then anything I would "traditionally" compose
word, the shit that I come up with in my head was ALWAYS some inane sing-songy bullshit. it's what got me interested in generative and I've never looked back since
what was that hampus album, something like "Red Velvet" or sorta similar to that?
>my thoughts exactly. like, in order to make generative music, you have to commit to some model of music
Yep. You often have to think of it more as system-building than "song-writing". As a compositional process it's pretty liberating, simply because it's so far removed from the usual methods.
there it is
not exactly, but I do work with formal grammars/production rules as well as self-similarity/ fractals. but the latter only up to a certain depth past which to me it just feels like splitting the atom for no reason at all.
kind of like your monitor resolution isn't infinity by infinity but basically it's good enough.
>having said that, it is also very informative on what exists out there and is, relatively speaking, rather correct.
better than this one at least
I love fooling with samples and synths and effects. Recently I've been doin my own synthesis starting with just a 3X oscillator and building upwards in layers. lots of interesting sounds coming out.
I also record a lot of natural sounds that strike my ears. everything from tui's (native bird herein NZ) to metal scraping along a bench, to hands swiping the bottom of a sink full of water. If I hear something interesting, I whip out my phone and record it. Later i can use these found sounds in pieces, or on their own, or for study. For example I love looking at birdsong in the spectrograph and seeing what kind of crazy shit is going on in there.
Sonorism guides me (and indeed should guide any composer) in that I find sound very interesting, no matter the source. Any mundane object can make a cool sound, its just a matter of forming those sounds into a coherent piece.
>you ever (you probably) just wild out in piano roll or what?
shit yeah. here's one of my "wild outs":
This piece was made ~3 years ago. I tend to shy away from uber complexity these days in favor of simplicity and beauty.
>is 'eurhythmics' something that falls under the umbrella field of ethnomusicology?
Eurhythmics definition: the art of interpreting in bodily movements the rhythm of musical compositions.
I would say so, yes. Many traditional cultures use dance and music in tandem. You must study the dance in order to get the full picture of the music and the social setting.
/tg/ has gone too far... again.
Dumping some weird shit:
John Psathas - Abhisheka
Xenakis - Mycenae Alpha
Murail - Gondwana
Conlon Nancarrow - Study for player piano No. 37
Ives - Three Quarter-Tone Pieces
Haas - String Quartet No.7 with electronics
Lachenmann - Pression
Couple of interesting documentaries:
Leaving Home (20th Century music with Simon Rattle)
In The Ocean - A Film About The Classical Avant Garde
>I also record a lot of natural sounds
ditto, but my speciality's moreso in home appliances with the exception of
>I love looking at birdsong in the spectrograph
love this too. maybe the birds around here aren't as well learned but the birds that live in parts have very rudimentary birdsong. of course this I think makes it all the more mysterious. like what is it this tiny little language and this compact need for communication and how does it all work. we may never know for sure of course, but it's mad wonderful.
>You must study the dance in order to get the full picture of the music and the social setting.
ayyy just like juking and footwork that dance shit is too crazy tho lamao
Birds are the foremost melodic musicians of our time, and they don't even know it.
Here's one of my recordings of a Bell-bird I think. I'm no ornithologist, I thought it might have been a Tui
recorded on a main street at 4am so there's some traffic noise in there...
oh wow, those tunes are a lot more intricate than what I'm used to. the ones around here usually keep to 2 or 3 tones and very simple patterns, usually at a steady pulse. though they incorporate changes in how many of each tone they chirp as well as slight delays in rhythm/timing
in general it also brings up a very interesting question about how sound works as communicative data, and the abstract processes our minds execute when they hear some sound and as they search for its structure
I've been tracking what seems like the same bird for a couple of years, always sings at early hours of the morning near where I live. The song changes from month to month. have only done 3 or so actual recordings though. usually just listen and see if I can recognize the familiar patterns and what kind of mutations they undergo.
I always field record when I'm high because I think people are coming to kill me so I put it on rec and I say "this one is for the courts" and I end up with 600 hours of field recording and fuck all idea on how to sift through it. however last night I did hear the same owl I heard like 4 months ago (I thought it was a coyote that time) except further away than this one other owl it was talking to. wack shit really, birds/owls/whatever
the hope was for more technical discussion on a leftfield topic, but really that would've needed at the least some people with intersecting interests and specialties
final bump from me, but op will stay with his ship til she drowns.. gnight sweet princess
I was actually thinking of spamming my own stuff and discussing it some, but I don't usually like doing that. It feels a little bit lame...
I really like algorithmic composition, microtonality and musique concrete (GRM composers mainly), though.
Here's a piece that I like a lot: Les Couleurs de la nuit by François Bayle
This is from 1982 and was mostly made by digitally editing sounds with a non-real time computer at GRM. It actually strongly resembles glitch, in particular Autechre's Chiastic Slide album.
I used to trip here and it's a little embarrassing to out myself.
I'm trying to find more stuff to post about GRM. There are papers by Daniel Terrugi that outline the different stuff that was developed there. I think I know the music well enough that I can post examples of each...
I use Pure Data. I know you were talking about generative grammars and stuff earlier, but I never found that to be terribly interesting. I use more of a step sequencer model (post-Berlin School, I guess). The thing is that I randomly vary the sequences over time, and separate the sequence from the pitch class set, which I control separately to modulate to different scales.
And other stuff is more sort of generative sound using randomly varying filter banks and so on... Xenakis is a nice inspiration for some of that, but his computer music stuff didn't really go far enough in a lot of ways...
sweet, same here.
>generative grammars and stuff
>I never found that to be terribly interesting
idk exactly what you mean when you say 'generative grammars' but what I've done is construct a limited model of music, one that can be described by a simple formal grammar.
>I use more of a step sequencer model
word, my entire work is based mainly from the idea of the step sequencer instrument
>separate the sequence from the pitch class set
>control separately to modulate to different scales
ditto. I try to figure out what the tunes I'm making will be along the horizontal axis before I go on to assigning them pitch values
p.s. are you by any chance an anon who mentioned working with auto-generating tunes until he heard things he found preferable? (this might've been in a /bleep/ thread or something to the like?)
b-but no one takes it seriously
Anyway here's the GRM thing:
You have to make an account to download it, though.
There were basically 4 different setups at the GRM. The oldest stuff exclusively used tape. They built machines like the phonogène to mechanically manipulate tape (analogous in its most advanced form to a pitch shifter). I think one of the best examples of this is Capture éphemérè by Bernard Parmegiani (circa 1968, IIRC). This was made using a shit-ton of tape splicing and other manipulation...
I'll keep going later...
>idk exactly what you mean when you say 'generative grammars' but what I've done is construct a limited model of music, one that can be described by a simple formal grammar.
I thought you were talking about something more specific that I'd read about before. It's not really important.
>word, my entire work is based mainly from the idea of the step sequencer instrument
It's kind of just an easy way to generate complex things from a small amount of data and navigate repetition vs. novelty, and it's more or less familiar enough to not be off-putting.
>p.s. are you by any chance an anon who mentioned working with auto-generating tunes until he heard things he found preferable? (this might've been in a /bleep/ thread or something to the like?)
I don't think so.
continuing GRM shit...
The analog Coupigny synthesizer was developed because Pierre Schaeffer wasn't satisfied with the way ordinary synthesizers were programmed. He preferred empirical "composing through listening", and opposed the overly formal approach of composers like Boulez and Stockhausen. He thought that synthesizers that were programmed in a precise, parametric way encouraged composers to precisely specify the sounds. So instead, the focus of the Coupigny synthesizer is on high level control. The designer (François Coupigny) was also apparently a bit of a weirdo. Beyond that, I haven't seen a lot of specific information, but it seems to be a very idiosyncratic machine.
A completely crazy example of it (I think) is Turpituda by Ivo Malec:
It's sort of proto-Merzbow.
>on generative grammars
in case you're a programmer by trade, what I mean by grammars is more along the lines of context-free grammars used to build programming languages
>an easy way to generate complex things from a small amount of data
definitely agree, it's a very intuitive system though personally i'm a ton more interested in generating simple things from complex amounts of data.
>navigate repetition vs. novelty
but then again it's mainly cause I accepted 'repetition' as the most fundamental musical concept from which (in the universe of my work) all other concepts are constructed
>on that last p.s. bit
in the interest of disclosure, that dude and I were talking about approaching musical composition through a method of objective selection whereas to the listener it would seem to be subjective intent
field recordings is like /mu/tant's first exposure to "non-musical" music, come on like isn't Voices of North American Owls still requisite listening on this board?
I mentioned the non-real time digital stuff above. The main idea behind Schaeffer's vision of musique concrete is that recorded sounds (from any source) should be transformed by some process to render them unrecognizable. The sounds could then be used in a composition based on their spectral/timbral qualities, without conveying any semantic content to the listener that's derived from the source of the sound. You're forced to listen to the sound itself rather than infer it's origin (reduced listening). So the idea of the digital studio was to transform sounds in a more flexible way using digital processes. Some of the stuff it offered was pretty esoteric, but for the most part you could get similar results now using Adobe Audition or whatever.
But it was slow to work this way, and it offered no opportunities for interaction or performance, so a real-time system (Syter) was developed in the mid 80s. This offered many of the same processes, but allowed live manipulation using some sort of graphical display and tablet interface (if I understand correctly...)
Bernard Parmegiani used this for Exercismes (1986).
This was a nice development, but I prefer the older stuff. I thought the earlier music was more elaborate and thoughtfully put together. And the sort of digital processing that could be done in real time sounded rather cheap until maybe 2005...
sheeut those sounds are WILD, as is that battlestation
>empirical "composing through listening"
more info about this pls
or for folks to have these sorts of feels:
>lol check it out im going up a swiss mountain transport system. wooo!
>hhaha it really sounds like im at chernoobyl or something
>look at me lmao im sitting in a room xD
>more info about this pls
I don't think there's really that much to say; I mean it's mostly the way that people work now, or the sort of thing that Brian Eno describes. I think Schaeffer just didn't like the idea that modernist composers often seemed to prioritize organizational principles over actual perception. And really, I think that's the correct way to work with electronics in general. This stuff is often counter-intuitive, and doing everything in a purely top-down sort of way often isn't the path to a really satisfying end result. It makes more sense to try something and allow yourself to be guided by the result.
They only made two. That one is the portable model that's still at the GRM. The other one here >>50252155 was donated to a museum.
>what I mean by grammars is more along the lines of context-free grammars used to build programming languages
yeah, I know
>personally i'm a ton more interested in generating simple things from complex amounts of data
The value of complexity I think is overrated. It's trivial to make something complex to the point that it sounds totally disorganized. I think focus should be more on how things change over time, expectation vs. surprise, gradual vs. sudden.
>but then again it's mainly cause I accepted 'repetition' as the most fundamental musical concept from which (in the universe of my work) all other concepts are constructed
I thought it was a good idea to try to make things as (relatively) accessible as possible - not so much for the sake of the audience, but more to make it easier to evaluate whether or not I'm doing something "good". It's too easy to dive straight into something totally wild, then not know what to make of it. Repetition is a good way to make something easier to listen to.
what's the right environment to listen to eai in
i tried to give an album a listen (forgotten the name but it was orange with a red shape inside of it and was divided by times of day) but couldn't fully appreciate it or dig into it in a worthwhile way
I might as well sperg about some other shit too...
Erkki Kurenniemi designed a series of very unusual experimental instruments in the 1970s. He was far ahead of his time in the sense that he focused on interface rather than sound generation. I think the idea was that users were primarily influenced by the way they interacted with the instruments. The sound generation he used was very simple.
This is the DIMI O, which controls a sort of electronic organ sound from a video camera. The video is completely wild and awesome.
this dance-to-beat translator beat Processing and Open Frameworks to the punch by like 40 years, like dawg do you even know what technology was like in 1971? fuck, this is some NASA grade shit
complexity is overr8
thanks btw for all the experimental instrument posts, its all been really cool content
More stupid shit I can ramble about: non-standard synthesis.
In the 70s, most computer music research focused on sound synthesis algorithms that could either accurately model instrumental sounds, or provide a relatively simple way for a user to generate a desired sound. But there were some interesting alternatives explored by people like Iannis Xenakis and Herbert Brün. Aside from signals being generated by some typical kind of synthesis (additive, FM, waveshaping, etc.), the signals could also be generated directly through some abstract process (i.e. a piecewise linear function or similar), with high level randomized control. All properties of a sound (pitch, amplitude, timbre) aren't explicitly controlled but instead emerge from this process.
The sounds were generally pretty nasty, but it's being explored again now. Given the interest in things like glitch art, the extreme end of computer music (Florian Hecker), etc. it seems pretty forward thinking.
I just finished a pretty disturbing and interesting track for my sound synthesis practice.
4 notes all bending VERY slowly in a cluster chord and bending through each other. some weird phasing...
Dirty ole FL studio. You can control bends/glissandi very slowly over time, with multiple notes bending in different directions in once instrument which is pretty cool
probably not sound synthesis proper, but I started with clean 3Xosc and built from there with effects and layering. The two electronic parts heard in this piece. The bass and the higher parts. The percussion is orchestral samples.
Have you guys never realized that french chanson is considered, in its native country, to be the absolute pebiest form of music ? You might as well put hair-metal in the same section
I'm dropping a sc link here, but I feel like this thread is more suitable than standard soundcloud threads here.
I'm unsure of what I'm doing musically here, and I'd like some help defining it. Some have said it reminds them of a less aggressive form of No Wave. I'm not sure. Other pieces of mine have been compared to Glenn Branca. It's all done with a guitar, if that helps.
Is this post-minimalism? If not, what would quickly define it?
Good Point.Hair Metal is pretty patrician actually. It brought a pretty refreshing take on melody within the rock canon. You had never really heard that style of playing before Van Halen.
>go to bed
>b8 image keeps thread alive thru the night
lmao thank u based pyramid jpeg
Puredata (www.puredata.info) is free and basically the same exact thing, so cop that because you won't be able to feed it into FL any easier than you would Max
Russian chanson is fantastic tho
come on anon, imagine what'd happen if there wasn't anybody who took music seriously.. there wouldn't be any progressive rock either!
that's not true
my very first exposure to all this wacky shit I was going to public lobbies in call of duty 4 on xbox live and blasting pic related into my microphone whenever we played on shipment, pipeline, or vacant
>bluntly put, looking for folks who are working up on high on the tops of this pyramid; regions that in order to inhabit necessitate a nonstandard model for music-making.
So in other words, you're looking for people who are shitty at music but want attention anyway.
In traditional music discourse, verticality broadly refers to harmony and horizontality refers to melody and counterpoint. These terms are of course derived from the physical placement of notes on the staff. I don't know what they mean in the context of stupid "avant" music, though.
who here /dynamic tonality/?
>Dynamic tonality is tonal music which uses real-time changes in tuning and timbre to perform new musical effects such as polyphonic tuning bends, new chord progressions, and temperament modulations, with the option of consonance.
it's more than just adjusting your tuning now and then, it's a continuous modification of the entire tuning system, it's hard to imagine how you could do that without synthesisers and computers
>subconsciously stealing fro- err 'being influenced by' other musicians who in turn were 'influenced by' other musicians
>think all music comes from feels
>just want to be able to write derivative geetar ditties within a limited musical field for your dream qtp2t
do u even have no heroes?
the trips preach
omg im sorry but that concept sounded cool until I watched the video after which I could all but only deductively conclude that
/dynamic rhythm/ >>>>>>>>>>> /dynamic tonality/
I really hope that vid was only just an unfortunate example
based post-Africans winning music again
Pretty much any skilled musician will do this automatically. Continuously tweaking intervals by microtunings to maximize consonance is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.
>mfw dnb beat comes in over polyphonic droning
imo music is ultimately a lot more communicative if you don't fuxx with the tunings that much
>the majority of other people define what music means to me
Music is mathematics in a sense of harmony, sequence of frequencies that appeal to the ear
If you skip that natural appealing sequencies by doing '2/5' tones and that shit the appeal to that is stricly mathematic
>harmony is the only musical feature that can be approached with mathematics
>i don't understand it
>it must be math
im not blaming you, im blaming the educational system
If i did understand your point: Yes music is subjetive but in a background of that ''pleasant tonalty'' that comes from the culture you are exposed to
If for you music its just a sucesion of sounds in time yes you are right
You're judging to fast, and i appreciate other cultural musical tuning and pitchs, as well as the porpuse of avant-garde music which i spend a lot of time doing my researchs. But tell me, whats your favorite records, dont lie
>Pretty much any skilled musician will do this automatically.
That's only true to a limited extent. Applied the way you're thinking, you'd end up with comma pumps all over the place. This has been examined before. In Missa Solemnis, the pitch of the whole thing would end up a third or so higher than where it started. But this doesn't happen. It's more that people adjust the intonation of seventh chords to be more consonant. That's not really adaptive tonality.
Any one else find that real enjoyment, felt in the gut, never goes further than type II? Shit get's interesting from there, but I don't get the enjoyment from it, more fascination.
First post was >musical comes from popular culture /thread
was refering to OP > ''looking for folks who are working up on high on the tops of this pyramid''
Like there is a superior form in music
>what diference does it make
Probably your favorite albums are product of modern popular music like burial selftitled, if you seem to open to other ways of making music and blame the educational system why you enjoy modern occidental-music the most (maybe judging to fast too, but i think you understand whats my point, even if english is not my first language, which is obv haha)
>Like there is a superior form in music
maybe, but i can tell you for sure that there's alternate ones to the standard '12 tone equal temparment written by a human being' model.
and inb4 the usual "you can't criticize til you learn it" counterargument because that'll just get turned around right back on you
your favorite albums aren't bound by necessity to having to influence what sort of music you yourself want to make
the measure of how high shit goes up on the pyramid isn't about it's superiority to other forms, but rather as by how much it deviates from the predominant musical paradigms
if that to you still means that "oh but these forms would not have come about if there wasn't a standard practice," then consider this: >not following or acknowledging any one particular set of arbitrary musical rules is not necessarily equivalent to "setting out to break them"
some philosophies come about because they are logically able to, not as an extremist reaction to what already exists
It's a different kind, and it strikes me that that divide is around the type II - III mark. I was wondering if I was the only one here who felt this way? Do you feel a same sort of enjoyment over the whole spectrum, or do you get different sorts from different categories? Like me with two distinct types of enjoyment.
Well, there's Monoton, Oidupaa Vladimir Ouin, William Basinski, Robbie Basho and the like, that I really do enjoy in the way I enjoy the lower tiers, but these still are on a relatively low tier.
I don't know where does Penderecki's Threnody go in the chart, but I genuinely appreciate it, like I would if it was an ambient piece or whatever.
I just sit here and listen to it.
Maybe it's worth talking about listening strategies. Generally it helps a lot to read about a composition to get an idea of what a composer is aiming for, and what you're supposed to get out of it. This isn't necessary for "popular" music because you can already infer adequate context from your own knowledge, but it's not generally the case for any sort of avant garde music. It's not something that you're going to be familiar with already.
I think the main misconception among listeners is that there's to be something to "get" or decipher, as though it's a puzzle. It's not. You're just supposed to listen to it. If you say that something is "just noise", you're not really listening.
The other thing is that you don't necessarily have to like it. The purpose of art is not to please, entertain, educate, etc.
To some extent it's an acquired taste. It's a lot easier to enjoy once you get acclimated to something and know what to expect. The composer isn't really making it intentionally difficult or disconcerting; generally he's just setting out to explore some territory that he finds interesting, for whatever reason.
And it helps to be selective; often the most historically significant compositions aren't really the most accomplished or the most interesting to actually listen to.
The octave-tone model that we have is the most appealing to our ears physically, and i can tell you this becouse i studied musicology career and now im doing a degree in sound (that doesnt have to prove anything, and isnt relevant but w/e)
There's nothing wrong with alternative pitchs etc. Gonna try to express whats the point i tried to convey:
For me, Music, as a form of art, should express emotions (not just the romantic-like mean of the word) and the one listening to it can relate it to it the same way, as an emotion. But art is an ambiguous concept, for example there is the conceptual-art, which only works in an intelectual way, like philosophy does, and i dont refuse to it, i aprecciate it. Just saying you cant put both forms of art in the same bag, therefore 'the pyramid' there dont have any sense (and yes, its about superiority, or at least self superiority becouse apparently it gets more effort to get into, other wise it wouldnt be a pyramid)
well the higher up you go the generally more academic it gets. none of the things at the top are really genres unto themselves as much as they are compositional approaches/paradigms/philosophies so most of the time you get music that's very dry, music whose primary purpose isn't to directly appeal to your sense of preference, music that's mostly lacking any sort of aesthetic style.
if you're up there and enjoying yourself, there's a chance you happen to be studying it. and as any worthwhile mental pursuit there's an amount of work you'd have to put into it before you get something back; there isn't any guarantee that it'll be immediate
as an extension to what this anon said, sometimes the beauty of music like that is in the technical details. less an appeal to the heart and more an appeal to your ability to get it and think "wow well shit that was cleverly done"
>The composer isn't really making it intentionally difficult or disconcerting; generally he's just setting out to explore some territory that he finds interesting
the composer is working in his/her own world. part of the interest some people derive is trying to step into and understand it
wall noise maybe
I got this mysterious package today...any guesses?
And 1 more thing to say, im pretty sure it tke more effort to an avant-garde artist to make a good punk album than a punk artist to make a 'new complexity' composition (which i find very easy to get into and even easy to compose in the mind, couse write it and play it could be a pain)
why do some people enjoy noise yet regurgitate whatever they last ate whenever they hear bach?
because your 'ears' don't get a say in what you like and don't like. they are only a tool for transmitting sound to you. the phenomenon of enjoyment still chiefly happens in your mind
what about a punk artist trying to make a good new complexity composition? surely that levels the odds out a bit?
oh wowza is it pic related
if dubs ship it back and get this with your refund
>the composer is working in his/her own world. part of the interest some people derive is trying to step into and understand it
I'll say though that there's a limitation to this line of thinking. The mistake of modernism was to presume that one could contrive some arbitrary organizational system that would be as rich and interesting as more traditional musical forms. Music evolved communally, as a part of culture. You can't really break from culture entirely and expect to be understood or widely appreciated. And you can't expect to compete with the richness of something that's been developed by a large number of people over a long period of time.
I think the more promising stuff now is perceptually motivated, and builds on existing culture rather than attempting to replace it.
Culture is fundamentally collaborative and communal. To take a purely individualist approach is generally to condemn yourself to some academic ghetto of music that no one listens to.
I genuinely like a lot of atonal and electroacoustic music, but there are more worthwhile things to explore than, for example, total serialism...
It's important to find a balance between objective/perceptual aspects of music (consonance isn't really subjective) and cultural aspects (more or less any audible phenomenon can come to be valued). It's a matter of perception, knowledge and experience.
Damn that sucks.
But I already opened the plastic!
If its noise rock like sonic youth, even their early work, its the same, appeal to an emotion no matter if it has intellectual connotations, if its something like drone noise with no musical purpose i dont call it music, but not saying you cant appreciate it and ''enjoy'' it in an intelectual way but not in a emotional way (which is the real enjoyment for me)
>new good complexity composition
A punk artist surely can compose a worthy one, you also can, maybe you can write it or play it but surely you can do it in your mind
But what separate a worthy one from a good one?