Re: remix?


Subject: Re: remix?
From: Arun Chandra (arunc@elwha.evergreen.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 16 1999 - 02:29:09 EDT


>
> A dance music remix [by definition] attempts to stay true to musical essence
> of the original - the elements that are generic to the dance genre
> (particular rhythmic and formal patterns/structures/processes) do not
> constitute this "essence" and hence are open to variation (within bounds) as
> the remixer feels fit.
>

This is silly: a definition to stay true to a musical "essence" by excluding
its constituent parts.

"Remixing" is the PhotoShop of acoustic composition: add a little from
here, throw in something from there, and then, Dig it! mix in a beat
and you have: thoughtless, desireless sound.

A "beat" makes continuous any stream of fragments, so:

the beat is the cement for blocks of sound (or blockheads of sound).

Hanns Eisler (one of Schoenberg's students who wrote a number of
12-tone pieces) wrote somewhere that 12-tone music allowed composers
four new ways to be stupid: you could have stupidity forwards,
stupidity backwards, stupidity inverted, and stupidity backwards
inverted.

Nowdays, the same applies to the "beat" ---

(except when you retrograde or invert the beat, you get the same
stupidity: let's hear it for progress in musical thinking!)

Arun Chandra
arunc@evergreen.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:02 EDT