Might want to decouple tonality and rhythmicity - a two-dimensional grid
might work better. 1 through 5 for increasing degree of harmonic & tonal
content, A through E for increasing degree of rhythm orientation (with C being
rhythmic, E being song-oriented for example, if one can accept song-structure as
an extension of rhythm-structure).
I would be in 4-5C territory most of the time.
Nic
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:14
AM
Subject: Re: a general question
--- Lance Chance <lrc8918@louisiana.edu>
wrote:
> whoever cares to reply. you consider your loop
work:
>
> 1 totally ambient, atonal, arrhythmic
> 2
>
3 a little of both, some of both (rhythmic, but atonal) (atonal, but
>
rhythmic)
> 4
> 5 song oriented, rhythmic, tonal
>
>
i'm just curious. i do both. right now i'm mainly working
with some
> pretty freaky vocal stuff. a "1" from above.
however, i have done lots of
> guitar and bouzouki work that was very
"musical" or "song oriented". i'm
> sure this question has
been brought up before, but the list changes all of
> the time.
also: why do you do what you do and what do you think of the
> other
side of the coin?
The problem is that there's a LOT of space between 3
and 5. Things that are
harmonic and rhythemic, and yet, not "song
oriented". Most of my looping fits
somewhere in there. I don't plan out
songs, it's freely improvised, yet, it's not
atonal, and it generally
develops a rhythm, but it never ends up sounding like a
pop song, ABABCAB,
or whatever.
Greg
__________________________________
Do you
Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
|
