Vladcasm1

I've read a rather long interview with Steven Wilson (Porcupine tree) and something he said made me wonder.

Basically he said that currently music is at a peak. everything has already been done, as opposed to the 70's when different artists were still inventing and experimenting with different sounds.

So do you agree with this? Do you think music can't go beyond what we hear today?

Personally, I disagree, IMHO the amount of genres that evolved since the 70's allow for an even greater potential for new kinds of music that we haven't heard yet, than before.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I'm very much assuming he's referring to prog not things like Aerosmith. With that said, I have no idea where he's coming from.

All they were doing in the 70s was transitioning elements of jazz, and classical into the avant-garde, and Indian inspired psychedelic leanings of 60s blues rock. There was no inventing going on, just combining.

With that said, I don't think it matters. The biggest problem right now is the fact it's obvious that Electronic music is the future, but so little effort has been used to develop a comprehensive language for it.

They either:

A) Want to conform it to the Western 12 tone scale which makes no sense at all.

B) Want it to be completely free but refine it to simplistic, and repetitive drum beats.

C) Want to use it to simulate acoustic music entirely as if it isn't there.

D) Use it's noisey aspects to create completely melodyless noise music. (Which I like, but lost it's edge in terms of commonality).

E) Want to use it to eliminate the usage of instruments, and technique entirely. Making music an entirely untrained form. Worse yet, a completely automated form.

If you ask me, digital technology has come way too fast. Acoustic music had centuries to develop, but analog music has only had 3 or 4 decades. Digital music comes in way too fast, and changes the rules entirely.

So, no, not everybody has done everything. Very few are competently finding ways to drop the guitar, and try something new.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

TheBig3

Well the problem with conforming to the 12 tones of the western scales is only there if we're leading the machine to believe that 1 tone is the base measurement. If the computer can divide the note by 12 or 32 you've got a lot more range.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Rubato

well no, equal temperament was constructed to make things a little easier, the purpose isn't to divide an octave into equal parts. Tonality is created through the fifth relation to each note and their closest overtones, expanding further would just lead you into more distant regions and we'd be left with roving harmony, if you want to abandon tonality altogether then you would have no need for a scale to begin with.

TheBig3

This is a computer we're talking about. It needs a base unit of measurement.

But its not about whether or not we remove things but where we allow the the emphasis to me put. I read a piano thoery book once where a chapter was devoted to where the emphasis on a rest should go; Whole rest, half rest front, half rest back, center rests...you get the idea.

Well the computer, if we allow it to divide into sub-tones would allow to achieve sounds like this. I think its going to allow the music to move forward from the sort of boxy arrangements its been put into by current programming.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Rubato

If you mean these "sub-tones" are nothing more than a prolongation then I agree, they cannot have any bearing on the musical structure. Either way the western scale system doesn't change, we just have a few more fancy embellishments to play with. If the tone becomes more distant from the fundamental note it will just seek out a closer relation.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Raw frequency, there is not reason why music cannot be 100% atonal.

In the end, the differences between the pitches playing means worlds more than the pitches themselves. Instruments being nothing but signal senders you might as well just be able to set a minimum, and maximum frequency per interface.

Then, you have to sort of decide the interface. Obviously with a keyed, or button based interface you'd have to set up a system of interludes(you could set up a different one for each instrument instantly without tuning). Then again, if you were to utilize a midi interface connected to a series of strings ala a violin like series of strings(each could be a separate interface), you could make the increments practically microscopic, and just use a really thin bow.

You can be even more flexible of you're using coding, or more automated interfaces(which I like a little automated, but it's no fun if there isn't some element of human interface).

Melody and harmony, imo, shouldn't be the realm of mathematics anyway. It should be the realm of listener, and composer intuition. It's how hip-hop operates, and it's what allows hip-hop to reach areas that more strictly constructed music can't always achieve.

All else goes. Obviously if you use heavy electronic effects, you can't achieve perfect harmony anyway, as layers of filters will distort your pitch quite a lot along the way. It's better to use these, and compare them differences yourself, than worrying about being perfectly parallel.

The electronic language should be set up more in the competence of interfaces, and the fullest usage of their potentials, not as much the strict rules the sounds they produce. There's still measures that a composer can be judged in terms of the means he or she utilizes these technologies to gain distinction(which is significantly more difficult seeing as making relatively amazing sounding music is much easier with sample-based digital means than traditional instruments).

As far as notating I'm assuming it'd be something like this:

-------------------------------------------------
Interface A

Texture A : Siren
Texture B : Electronic Wave (3989 3948398 9834983 or some nonsense numbers like that)

Start Frequency: 25678(I have no idea what note this would be, or even if it's listenable).

Over the duration of 2500 milliseconds Texture A fades from 50% to 75%, and Interface A raises to frequency 3745847

-------------------------

Essentially, just a description of traits of sounds, how they can be achieved, and where they can be transformed over portions of time, roughly. I'm assuming also there will be descriptions of how to 'tune' or 'set' your instrument. They'd have to contain more than raw notes as textural values are equally important as pitches in electronic music. Things like 'slides', 'sustain pedals', 'damper effect', etc. Would also have to be charted to particular knobs, slides, and other interfaces.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Rubato

In terms of pitch relationship I'd have to disagree on the grounds that a series of 2s,4s,8ths ect will always occur more times than 3s,6s,12ths ect. My main gripe with atonal music is that it relies on obscurity in order to function, atonality should concern itself predominately with tone color.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Yes, but you have to remember that these are number to chart existing frequencies. Or rather, have frequency correlations. The reason there are different scales is because the basis of mathematics in different cultures looks different. A Russian building obviously looks different than an Aztec building. One can say, if they both serve their function, neither is an inferior building.

Furthermore, they all exist within the law of physics. In the same way, every sound exists on a frequency plate. The reasons why pitch is so important to correlate in traditional is because acoustic instruments represent one texture per instrument, and can only vary in pitch. Therefore, pitch is harmony. Therefore, harmony can only be achieved by comparing pitches. IE. an A flat on a Trombone is set to sound 'good' alongside an A flat on violin.

However, when you have a three different samples mixed simultaneously each with a completely different rack of effects. You can no longer trust the input of A flat on each to correlate. Which is the initial dilemma.

3rds, 4ths, and 8ths don't matter on this plane. That's why you must rely on intuition, because there is no scale. Such difference are fictional as you have many layers of the spectrum of frequency operation simultaneously, often against your will.

That's why it's necessary a new language must be written. Because the rules have changed.

As for your gripe of atonality, I think that's more a trait of atonal compositions as they are. If you ask me, atonality isn't really a concept, it's lacking tonality. In the end, tonality is definitely the cart, and atonality is definitely the horse, and the concept of 'obscurity' is far too vague for science.

I've never seen the need for tonality. Sounds are sounds, you shouldn't need to relate them to other similar accepted arrangements of sounds in order to declare them music. It allows too little for people to listen, and decide for themselves. 95% of people have no idea if you're playing a Thirds, or Sevenths anyway. If it's major c sharp, or a minor scale it makes no difference. They just know what emotion triggers in their brain when exposed to them.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Rubato

If one frequency is 1/2 the length of another it will always bear a stronger relationship to it than one that's 1/7 the length. That's where the hierarchy system comes from, the harmonics don't necessarily have to be present. Of course music doesn't have to focus entirely around this relationship but it will always be present.