making beats
Out of context: Reply #411
- Started
- Last post
- 3,186 Responses
- kingsteven0
On the relationships between instruments, sounds, music and their perception. I don't think anyone has ever explained it better than Pierre Schaeffer. One of the first people to study noise in the 40s and coined a myriad of theories relating to sound manipulation and it's perception that although modern technology has made commonplace, are often purely aesthetic (seemingly from the aggrandisement of musical imitation, and general homogenisation of popular music), used without any real relationship, structure or meaning.
You may need to use a bit imagination to apply his theories to modern music but I find them useful.
Schaeffer's definition of an instrument:
"Any device that allows us to obtain a varied collection of sound objects—or varied sound objects—while keeping at heart the permanence of a cause is a musical instrument, in the traditional sense of an experience common to all civilizations."
- This obviously applies to the world of acoustic instruments, but In a modern scenario I tend to apply it like so: A Telecaster sounds like it looks, and it doesn't sound like a BC Rich although TECHNICALLY the same instrument it would seem odd to see someone play country on a BC Rich and vice versa. Of course this is not meant to imply that you should't - Schaeffer also coined the term 'acousmatic' (which forms the basis of Music concrete) to refer to the eradication of this relationship though manipulation. (albums' this sort of explains why i relate so negatively to your guitar controller, if it was a guitar and you were a guitarist I could appreciate the juxtaposition of using it as a controller).
Of course by Schaeffer's definition, the studio isn't an instrument either (screw you Brian Eno) however it's easy to see how it would apply to a TR-808, Minimoog even MPCs, old samplers have 'a sound'. In fact any piece of desirable music equipment is usually down to it's 'permanence of a cause'/ vision. Even individual DAWs/ Sequencers all have a degree of character/ purpose, i'd credit them with some degree of musicality. I'd also consider laptops/ controllers in live electronic music a grey area for this reason (in live electronic music the mystery of wtf is intriguing, while an indie band with a laptop backing track is almost always a negative). It's a fine line.
On the relationship of instruments, sounds, music:
"Music has to do with sounds, so we need to find them somewhere and it is preferred to find musical ones. You have two sources for sounds: noises, which always tell you something — a door cracking, a dog barking, the thunder, the storm; and then you have instruments. An instrument tells you, 'la-la-la-la.' Music has to find a passage between noises and instruments. It has to escape. It has to find a compromise and an evasion at the same time; something that would not be dramatic because that has no interest to us, but something that would be more interesting than sounds like Do-Re-Mi-Fa..."
On musical revolution:
"People who try to create a musical revolution do not have a chance, but those who turn their back to music can sometimes find it."
More quotes:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pie…- lol at you caring how i use a digital toolalbums
- you sound like one of those guys who cares which operating system is running illustrator.albums
- yes, it's all about you albumkingsteven
- The amount of times I've used something wrong and got the right thing from it.sem
- not all things that create noise are instruments and it is that line between noise and sounds with permanence (ie. created with instruments) is where magic happenskingsteven
- by instruments) is where magic happens. but it's so easy to get it wrong.kingsteven