Subject: Re: art not music
From: Rick (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 12:35:38 EST
They sound musical. There are places where rhythm and harmony exist,
yet no strict adherence to a particular system. The systems from which
the work derives does show through, but I hope are sufficiently
subverted to fit the new form. It is still very much a bottom-up
approach at the studio level.
The sources however were traditional musical types, ie. blues,
baroque, and some free-improv; all guitar.
But then again, do all "musical" works adhere to an "explicit" rhythm
and harmony? When you say "rhythm" do you mean tempo? There are many
rhythms, and variations of those rhythms recur at different tempos at
different (or simultaneous) moments in the work.
References to the sources are evident, and being sampled from a
"purpose-built" tool that has as its primary function, pitch, lends
musicality to the work as a whole.
This work in particular is an example of what I said about dot music
being just another subset of the ways to organize sound.
When you say "academic based", how is that different from how I
composed prior to academe when I used drums and tape and bass guitar?
Or disembodied organ pipes and swimming pool drains?
What exactly is your current situation? Is it that subset? Some kind
of dot music or some other system filtered through keyboard layouts?
Is it voice based? And the patterns you speak of, are they repetitive,
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:02:35 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org
> I would ask your Rick if your "musical" work has ingrained in it a strict
> adherence to explict rhythm and harmony. Is the rhythm the backbone that
> everything is laid on, does it function so that the harmonic structure comes
> back to realign itself with the rhythm after (possibly) straying away from the
> tempo, pulse, accentatuion pattern?
> Or maybe I should just ask how you come to call your latest work musical?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST