Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Doug: >It's fascinating to me that you used the violin as an analogy with which >to >knock microtuning, I never knocked microtuning! Did not! Did not! :) >since, unlike many other instruments, you can play a true perfect fifth on a >violin. I was in a band with a gifted violinist who told me that he was always >making his intervals pure, never equally tempered. How did he sound when playing with the rest of the band? <:o >If you haven't already done so, it's worth the effort to hear the >difference between an equally tempered fifth and a pure one, on the same >instrument if possible. (That's the "sensible" rationale for microtuning. >My other one: what's so special about the mathematical ratios used in >Western tunings anyway? There are more than 12 musically interesting >ratios.) Well, Steve Vai played a 13-note-per-scale guitar with "Xavian" tuning..... >I think it's worth pointing out that keyboards and guitar are not the >expressive solo voices that a violin is. On a violin or saxophone, a >single note without any electronic enhancement at all is capable of >expressing great feeling. On unprocessed electric guitar and keyboards, >you play one note and it sort of goes, plonk. Yeah, you can bend and add >vibrato on a guitar, but you still can't really convey the same sense of >effort required to sustain a tone that one hears from wind and string >instruments. Would it be fair to say that what usually gets respect in >guitar and keyboard playing circles is the facility to put long strings of >interesting notes together, more than the ability to evoke a beautiful >tone >of any one note? I'm not objecting to electrifying interuments per se - I play an electric guitar after all. In a way this has come about as an observation of my _own_ playing - I notice myself saying "Okay, I played with the neck pickup last time around, so this loop I'd better switch to the bridge, and maybe roll up the tone, or turn on the ADL". This is quite important if one is noodling (which I often do, natch) to prevent a complete mess. But it does bother me - after all many musical ensembles manage to play with identical instruments playing different pieces and it sounds great. I feel that being able to come up with valid musical statements with one voice is difficult - way beyond me, probably - but probably reflects a truer understanding of the instrument. >What constitutes "musical merit," anyway? Yeah, this is subjective. To >me, sure, a beautiful tone and good technique, and yes, notes written on a >piece of paper can be discerned to have musical merit without even hearing >them performed well. So musical merit comes both from the performer and >composer. Tone and technique play a role, but what makes a piece of music compelling? How important is melody, for example? >As a composer, I'm totally inspired by sound. I look at it like this -- >is >it easier to compose when staring at a blank piece of manuscript paper or >while playing my instrument? When I create synthesizer patches I would >rather start editing from a randomly generated patch in which I can hear a >hint of something cool than from a raw sine wave. I think it's probably synthesizers that most confuse me on this issue. The violin, or piano, or oboe or whatever is unto itself - most players will have their one instrument and know it inside out. However, with synth players the sounds are only as good as long as the synth is in vogue - how many players (besides Eno) have decided to say "right, I've got a DX7 (or whatever), and I'm going to get everything I can from it." >To return to what you said, there's nothing wrong with attracting >attention >through novelty of tone. Whatever floats the composer's boat. The >question is really whether, after the novelty wears off after a few >listenings, the music still says something to you. Exactly my point - sorry if I didn't express it well enough. I mean, everyone's felt what it's like to get on a really inspiring piece of kit, me included. But I've also listened basck to pieces I recorded with new kit (in an "ispired" frame of mind), only to find out I sounded like someone who's got a new toy but doesn't know what to do with it. >At some level _everything_ is noodling ... when I compose I noodle until I >find something that sounds good, makes musical sense, says what I want it >to say, etc. etc. Is "just" noodling trial and error with inadequate >editing? To me "noodling" is a willingness to listen to the right >hemisphere, especially early in the process (the left hemisphere usually >gets plenty of chances to edit later on). Sure; looped noodles can be inspiring (as well as the name of a tasty Chinese meal...?), but I feel that often we loopers are all too willing to do our trial-and-error compositions in public. Michael