Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

What does 'experimental' mean, in 'experimental music'?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse







X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46






    Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0
    View Post

    I couldn't disagree more strongly that one must be thoroughly versed in theory and composition in order to call one's music experimental. To some degree, one might say that there are 2 basic elements in the characterization - one must embody the spirit of experimentation deeply in one's own approach, and then I suppose it must also be evident in the final work. In some sense, it's really none of the listener's business what background the composer has - listen to the music and react to it on its own. The cliche that one must know the rules in order to break them is pretty silly. If one is making 'noise music' for instance, one does not need to study harmony first. And in fact, I think that it's often true that when one studies a discipline, it 'brainwashes' them from ever being able to truly let that theory go. As a violin player, I'm sometimes amused by hearing the attempts of great classical players to play non classical music. It's usually horribly, horribly stiff.....




    You could buy a Casio workstation and just start trying stuff. It's too easy though to do random soundage under the pretense of experimentation. There has to be - a hypothesis? And verifiable results. (?)
    Originally posted by Unconfigured Static HTML Widget...
    <div class="signaturecontainer">
    <div class="bbcode_container">
    <div class="bbcode_quote">
    <div class="quote_container">
    <div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>

    Write Something...

    Comment


    • #47






      Quote Originally Posted by 1001gear
      View Post

      You could buy a Casio workstation and just start trying stuff. It's too easy though to do random soundage under the pretense of experimentation. There has to be - a hypothesis? And verifiable results. (?)




      Because some skill is required doesn't imply that one most know harmony, for instance, in order to do music that has nothing to do with harmony.

      Comment


      • #48
        Fair enough. Still One must know 'music' and what passes as such. Just trying to eliminate the charlatans - and how would you know? Guy can do crappy ugly nonsense supposedly expressing the frustation and angst of some mythical niche of living for instance.
        Originally posted by Unconfigured Static HTML Widget...
        <div class="signaturecontainer">
        <div class="bbcode_container">
        <div class="bbcode_quote">
        <div class="quote_container">
        <div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>

        Write Something...

        Comment


        • #49
          call me a maverick, opinionated, a curator a gatekeeper (albeit a highly educated one if I can toot my own horn) but what I would consider "good" music or art, has an intangible, emergent property that can't be found by breaking the work down into it's constituent pieces.



          This "quality" is something that can be earned through innate talent, effort and practice. It can also be appreciated through the same means. If you really, really sat down and listened to someone on a casio, you'd be able to tell if they put effort into their work or not. they should be able to describe to you their process, their ideas and how they realized those ideas.



          In most cases, I respect effort more than I do the musical output simply because so many people seem incapable of being concerned about it. Most people seem to think that being born with a vagina or making something that already exists "star wars" begets an entitlement. I beg to differ.
          <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><br />
          <b>Give me my moog, but **** off you american techno rockstar! people in countries I've never been to do it better than you! </b><br />
          <br />
          <a href="http://www.computermusicguide.com" target="_blank">Computer Music Guide</a><br />
          <br />
          </font></div>

          Comment


          • #50
            So if pop structured music can be written off as not being experimental even if it's using experimental elements, does the same rule apply to experimental music attempting to mix in pop structured elements?



            Furthermore, if experimental music tries to adhere only to experimental techinques, but all of these techniques have already been done a million times over, should it really be considered experimental?
            <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><b>Hard</b>: JP-8000, MC-505, R3, microSTATION, Moog Theremin, miniKP, Ineko, Bitrman <br />
            <b>Soft</b>: Ableton Live 8, Korg Legacy Collection, FM8, D16 Classic Boxes/SilverLine Collection</font></div>

            Comment


            • #51






              Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0
              View Post

              I'm really not entirely sure....



              I'll relate my own 'case history'.



              I tend to not listen enough to current music, and I tend to ignore genres. I find it hilarious that in what are ostensibly experimental genres like 'noise music' there are seemingly infinite sub genres - which to me are the antithesis of experimental music. I say this inquisitively, not confrontationally (sp?) but how is something experimental if it conforms to a very narrow sub genre? '(noise with wall to wall projectile vomit and habanero peppers, bright orange')



              I tend to use that adjective when describing my own music because I can't think of anything else. I AM in a sense experimenting. Since I'm trying not, deliberately to make music that conforms to anything really, I'm working from various technical levels - routing, unusual settings, etc, to surprise myself, and then eventually to find things that please me. The theory always is that working without preconceptions (as much as possible) allows me to find stuff that I wouldn't have preconceived.



              But I'm not entirely sure that this fits with the definition of the term. Does it only refer to the final product? And how, exactly? These are questions that I ask myself. Usually when I'm less drunk.




              i would have liked to reply earlier, but work is hectic. when i hear the reference 'experimental music' (which i apply to my own process as well) i tend to subconsciously associate it with the typical 'atonal' genres. i think thats an incorrect association, my ideal statement would be that 'experimental music' is 100 percent about the process and act of exploring the unknown, trying new combinations and ideas, as drool said. perhaps the end result fits in a genre, perhaps not - the act of associating one's music with a genre is purely up to the musician i think, and can be just as personal as the music itself.



              a few of us thrive on introducing 'chaos' in our studio systems - whether by patching with the modular, hitting some sort of 'randomize patch' button, feedback loops, noise etc. there's always an element of 'experimental' when using non predictable systems like this, and to me that's the excitement of making music in the time we live in. plentiful tools & no expectation of commercial success leads to a limited number of passionate people doing interesting things with interesting equipment, making interesting sounds.



              but can the term 'experimental music' be applied to any genre? by my definition, i think so - but again i think it's up to the artist themself to define. many people have the same unconscious associations that i do about the term 'experimental music' and so intentionally avoid the term, even if their methods and process are experimental in nature.
              <div class="signaturecontainer"><b>-jason</b><br />
              <br />
              <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/donaldjasoncrunk/videos" target="_blank">youtube</a><br />
              <a href="http://donaldcrunk.bandcamp.com/album/history-switchboard" target="_blank">bandcamp</a><br />
              <a href="http://soundcloud.com/donaldcrunk" target="_blank">soundcloud</a></div>

              Comment


              • #52





                So if pop structured music can be written off as not being experimental even if it's using experimental elements, does the same rule apply to experimental music attempting to mix in pop structured elements?



                Yes and I think Suit had a good term in calling it exploratory music. If one were to improvise their own structure, such as Varese it would still be experimental, but if one simply copied an 8 bar, ABCAB type thing, then no, it's not wholly experimental.








                Furthermore, if experimental music tries to adhere only to experimental techinques, but all of these techniques have already been done a million times over, should it really be considered experimental?



                I think, in theory (or perhaps in practice), this can be considered the failing of experimental music. the issue here is, if we consider experimental music a "process" centered art form, it's incredibly easy for anyone to replicate the "process" of someone else. but I would argue that for no two people, the results would be the same.



                Until such time that experimental music becomes common place and replaces traditional music and all that it encompasses, it would then be the goal of experimental music to transgress those now common techniques.



                But until that time, I think the more common and replicated techniques tend to drift away from the core and more towards the outside as their use is more dictated by fashion rather than personal taste or a preference as a tool.



                I would think that there, in that nebulous outer valence you'd find the people that say "hey i looped this, I can be like Eno too" or something..
                <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><br />
                <b>Give me my moog, but **** off you american techno rockstar! people in countries I've never been to do it better than you! </b><br />
                <br />
                <a href="http://www.computermusicguide.com" target="_blank">Computer Music Guide</a><br />
                <br />
                </font></div>

                Comment


                • #53






                  Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0
                  View Post

                  I couldn't disagree more strongly that one must be thoroughly versed in theory and composition in order to call one's music experimental. To some degree, one might say that there are 2 basic elements in the characterization - one must embody the spirit of experimentation deeply in one's own approach, and then I suppose it must also be evident in the final work. In some sense, it's really none of the listener's business what background the composer has - listen to the music and react to it on its own. The cliche that one must know the rules in order to break them is pretty silly. If one is making 'noise music' for instance, one does not need to study harmony first. And in fact, I think that it's often true that when one studies a discipline, it 'brainwashes' them from ever being able to truly let that theory go. As a violin player, I'm sometimes amused by hearing the attempts of great classical players to play non classical music. It's usually horribly, horribly stiff.....




                  You are espousing experimenting not experimental. Anyone can experiment.

                  Comment


                  • #54






                    Quote Originally Posted by Mooginator
                    View Post

                    You are espousing experimenting not experimental. Anyone can experiment.




                    uh. No. but you don't explain yourself at all, so it's hard to argue with you.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      If you listen to two music performances that sound like random noises to you, does it matter that one was actually composed and played as written and the other was completely untrained performers just doing whatever they felt like (wasn't there a video some guy shot of apes banging on synthesizers?).



                      I once heard Wynton Marsalis talk about free improvisation in jazz and he made the point that listeners were more likely to accept musicians they had previously heard in mainstream contexts while considering others with a similar sound to be charlatans.



                      My wife finds that the more unusual the music is to her, the more she needs to attend a live performance to enjoy it. Anyone else feel that way?
                      <div class="signaturecontainer">My VCAs go to<b> 11</b></div>

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I'd like t comment n this but I will have t o do so later
                        <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><br />
                        <b>Give me my moog, but **** off you american techno rockstar! people in countries I've never been to do it better than you! </b><br />
                        <br />
                        <a href="http://www.computermusicguide.com" target="_blank">Computer Music Guide</a><br />
                        <br />
                        </font></div>

                        Comment


                        • #57






                          Quote Originally Posted by Re-Member
                          View Post

                          So if pop structured music can be written off as not being experimental even if it's using experimental elements, does the same rule apply to experimental music attempting to mix in pop structured elements?




                          A rule of thumb I have is that the dominant style gets the nod for what to call a piece. So a pop piece with some experimental elements (Beatles using tape loops in a pop composition) gets called pop, but experiments should be acknowledged. John Lennon / Yoko Ono did write a few things that were definitely experimental to me though (their all tape loop solo albums). Lou Reed's another example, "Metal Machine Music" is an experiment entirely based on noise drones.



                          There are also some artists that I would truly consider both. If someone writes for a genre, but does so with an entirely experimental technique, for instance. Some of Brian Eno's ambient music would count here.









                          Quote Originally Posted by Re-Member
                          View Post

                          Furthermore, if experimental music tries to adhere only to experimental techinques, but all of these techniques have already been done a million times over, should it really be considered experimental?




                          That's a good question, and I think it's important to distinguish that *experimental* doesn't mean *innovative* per se, and vice versa. Experimental music typically is defined as non-traditional music that does not conform to standard musical norms -- it typically truly is an avant garde term. Innovative is when you come up with new ideas that have not been tried before, regardless of genre. At least, that's how I define it.



                          As I see it, all the music concrete / tape loop stuff was pioneered by certain classical cats in the 1940s and 1950s. So what The Beatles etc. were doing with them wasn't exactly a new technique. On the other hand, when Wendy Carlos re-recorded classical tunes using a Moog music synthesizer, what she did had never been done before, even if it was classical pop. Wendy Carlos was more innovative than Lennon's Unfinished Music was, even if Lennon's Unfinished Music was more experimental. Right?
                          <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1">What I make with way too many blinky light modular items, plugins, and an Alesis Andromeda. <br />
                          <a href="http://forbiddenstar.com/" target="_blank">Forbidden Star: </a> home studio / melodic ambient / New Age / the deep zone<br />
                          <a href="http://boneyfiend.com/" target="_blank">Boney Fiend: </a>the band, man / punk / garage / beer</font></div>

                          Comment


                          • #58






                            Quote Originally Posted by Metrosonus
                            View Post

                            Until such time that experimental music becomes common place and replaces traditional music and all that it encompasses, it would then be the goal of experimental music to transgress those now common techniques.




                            I've always felt that it's the other way around; traditional music is what eventually replaces experimental music. Apes picked up a stick, randomly bashed it against several objects and realized it made a sound, then eventually some kind of structure evolved from the process. Traditional music wasn't just born in a vacuum of space. Plus if the inevitable goal of experimental music is to transgress against the norm, it would be no different than what Punk Rock aimed to do in face of Proggressive Rock. Since it's the same context, can Punk Rock be considered experimental?



                            To me, the word experimental has always meant asking yourself "what if...?", I'd say it's more about exploration and less about validation. I certainly enjoy the genre, but feel there's too many musicians these days using the genre to hide behind the latter.
                            <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><b>Hard</b>: JP-8000, MC-505, R3, microSTATION, Moog Theremin, miniKP, Ineko, Bitrman <br />
                            <b>Soft</b>: Ableton Live 8, Korg Legacy Collection, FM8, D16 Classic Boxes/SilverLine Collection</font></div>

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I don't disagree with you at all.. that kinda goes back to the over genrefication craziness of maybe a decade ago. "No man. I don't suck, you don't get it. It'd indie, ambient pop core trance dude.. cant you see it?"



                              And I guess I was thinking a little too broad like what if in a million years, when a mars colony gets cut off from earth and atonal sheet metal music is the norm, would some hip kids go back to sheet music?



                              But for the foreseeable geologic time period, yes, I agree things tend to move from experimental (or even subcultures) into the norm. but I think there's various levels, with fusion or smashup styles being on the outside.. while more severe interpretations are found at the core.
                              <div class="signaturecontainer"><font size="1"><br />
                              <b>Give me my moog, but **** off you american techno rockstar! people in countries I've never been to do it better than you! </b><br />
                              <br />
                              <a href="http://www.computermusicguide.com" target="_blank">Computer Music Guide</a><br />
                              <br />
                              </font></div>

                              Comment


                              • #60






                                Quote Originally Posted by droolmaster0
                                View Post

                                uh. No. but you don't explain yourself at all, so it's hard to argue with you.




                                The original post was about " experimental" music, not experimenting with music. The quotation marks, at least the way I read it, denoted a concerted effort to expand beyond typical boundaries within a given genre. One does not simply enter in "experimental" music BEFORE they have done anything else i.e. learn about music, how to play an instrument, etc... I stick to my statements.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X