Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: Even More Slash....




Very interesting to learn that having seen Bob Moog play once
was enough to determine that he "is a pretty silly guy himself " !!

If this is the way "precursors" and others are rated,
I doubt Stockhausen and Pierre Henry are proud
there where quoted in this posting.

Francois

-----Message d'origine-----
De:     asterion@hell.com [SMTP:asterion@hell.com]
Date:   jeudi 5 février 2004 18:20
À:      Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Objet:  Re: Even More Slash....

At 2:22 PM +0000 2/5/04, Steve Goodman wrote:

>I wonder what Robert Moog, who apprenticed with Scott, would think.

Bob Moog is a pretty silly guy himself (I once saw him play theremin 
in a duet with Keith Emerson - it was definitely silly).

>One might think it clever to call it "silly"

Not "clever" at all. Most of Scott's electronic music is obviously 
silly. All one needs to do is to listen to it and the silliness is 
quite clear. Remember that most of this was done as commercial 
jingles (Auto-Lite spark plugs, Bendix, Sprite,  Cheer, Hostess 
Twinkies, etc.).

>it's a major precursor to electronic music as we know it

In a musical-historical sense it's a "minor" precursor. Most of 
Scott's output dates from the 1960s, by which time "major" pioneering 
works of electronic music had already been created and disseminated 
by "major" composers such as Stockhausen, Henry, Berio

>Raymond Scott made the first sequencer process for electronic sound 
>production.

According to Moog's description, in 1955 Scott's sequencer consisted 
of "rack upon rack of these stepping relays that were used by the 
telephone company..." It was a clever adaptation of existing 
technology. In that same year the RCA Synthesizer Mark II was also in 
existence and being used much more publicly  for "serious" music.

The word "precursor" is important in discussing Scott's work, since 
it was certainly not much of a direct "influence" on anybody. While 
there is no doubt that Scott was an inventor of some talent and 
imagination, he was also inclined to "hide his light under a bushel" 
for fear of imitators. As a result very few people knew what he was 
really doing and therefore he had little impact on subsequent 
developments (both musical and technological).

-- 
/|   |\
\ \ / /
< * * >
( o o )
    A

application/ms-tnef