Wiardgroup

I found this on Amazon.com in a reader's review.

Pretty tough stuff. An interesting observation about the 
technology being more lively than the users...

"Although there was a spate of published historical surveys of 
electronic music during the early-to-mid 1970's, with the 
exception of Peter Manning's *Electronic & Computer Music*, 
there have been almost no synoptic overviews of the subject 
since then. Now comes Joel Chadabe's *Electric Sound*. One 
must admit that Chadabe's book does fill a void in the historical 
consideration of electronic music, and, for that reason alone, I 
wish that I could be more enthusiastic about it. The focus of this 
extremely overpriced paperbound book, however, is less on the 
significant achievements of composers of electronic music than 
it is on the technological means of creating it. One is hard 
pressed, indeed, to find references to more than a handful of 
significant compositions. Such an attitude is typical of the 
Post-Modern mentality (and, yes, there is such a thing, I'm sorry 
to say), in which artists of all stripes arrogantly offer 
over-intellectualized concepts and elaborate compositional and 
performance processes as justification for whatever results they 
achieve, no matter how nugatory these results may be. Here, 
one finds an inadvertent confirmation of that most basic critique 
of electronic music: That it is ultimately the soundtrack to a 
futuristic, technocratic nightmare in which the technology itself 
has become more vibrant and alive than those who create and 
ostensibly manipulate it. If one were to go by this book, then one 
would be justified in believing that, with perhaps the exception of 
Stockhausen's works, there have been no masterpieces of 
electronic music whatsoever. There has, however, been a lot of 
interesting hardware and software created for it. Could there be 
a more damning indictment of any artistic field of endeavor?"

hello grant,

a really interesting post.
i believe that the modern times allow people to do their own
style of music, which doesn't have to fit into categories.
lots of people do music for themselves and they don't have
other listeners in their mind, they don't have to make a living
with their music. for me that means 'freedom'. maybe the biggest
achievement of all the electronic instruments is that we can do
complex music at home, with timbres which are impossible on
other instruments, and it doesn't have to sound like crappy
homerecording. this also means that the music is less uniformed,
maybe less understandable and for sure less marketable.
i also believe that there are real masterpieces of electronic
music out there, but there is simply too much music, so nobody
takes notice of it. it also depends on the preferred style of
music to be able to recognize a masterpiece.

the author of the review stated that makers of electronic
music may be arrogant because their concepts are
over-intellectualized. reading such a statement makes me
understand why so many women were burned as witches a long
time ago.

best wishes

ingo




--- grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> schrieb: > I found this on
Amazon.com in a reader's review.
> 
> Pretty tough stuff. An interesting observation about the 
> technology being more lively than the users...
> 
> "Although there was a spate of published historical surveys of 
> electronic music during the early-to-mid 1970's, with the 
> exception of Peter Manning's *Electronic & Computer Music*, 
> there have been almost no synoptic overviews of the subject 
> since then. Now comes Joel Chadabe's *Electric Sound*. One 
> must admit that Chadabe's book does fill a void in the historical 
> consideration of electronic music, and, for that reason alone, I 
> wish that I could be more enthusiastic about it. The focus of this 
> extremely overpriced paperbound book, however, is less on the 
> significant achievements of composers of electronic music than 
> it is on the technological means of creating it. One is hard 
> pressed, indeed, to find references to more than a handful of 
> significant compositions. Such an attitude is typical of the 
> Post-Modern mentality (and, yes, there is such a thing, I'm sorry 
> to say), in which artists of all stripes arrogantly offer 
> over-intellectualized concepts and elaborate compositional and 
> performance processes as justification for whatever results they 
> achieve, no matter how nugatory these results may be. Here, 
> one finds an inadvertent confirmation of that most basic critique 
> of electronic music: That it is ultimately the soundtrack to a 
> futuristic, technocratic nightmare in which the technology itself 
> has become more vibrant and alive than those who create and 
> ostensibly manipulate it. If one were to go by this book, then one 
> would be justified in believing that, with perhaps the exception of 
> Stockhausen's works, there have been no masterpieces of 
> electronic music whatsoever. There has, however, been a lot of 
> interesting hardware and software created for it. Could there be 
> a more damning indictment of any artistic field of endeavor?"
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> 
> Check out Music Videos, Internet Radio, Artist Photos, Music News!
> LAUNCH Music on Yahoo!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Wkrq7C/JARHAA/n1hLAA/QnLolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  

=====
http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0€.
Sie sparen 119€ und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung.
http://de.adsl.yahoo.com

I'm with ingo on this, and completely disagree with the "Electric Sound"
reviewer.  He/she seems to have fit their impinged their own philosophy on
Chadabe's book and used that as reasoning to slam the entire experimental or
electronic music scene.

Some specific points:

Agreed, the Chadabe book is overpriced, but I have not seen a better
overview on the subject.  The Kettlewell book is useless and filled with
errors.

The Chadabe book does offer a strange mix of equipment information and
history of electronic (mostly electro-acoustic) music.  This seems to
disturb the reviewer that the technology should take any emphasis at all.

Barry Schrader's "Introduction to Electro-Acoustic Music" was published in
1982, not the early 1970s where the reviewer claims the last overview was
published.

Yes, there exist many intellectual exercises in the academic music world,
but your appreciation may vary.  I find many of the academic pieces tiring,
certain composers not worth listening to, but there are also many gems in
there, just as in any "style" or form of music.

There are also many artists who work outside of the traditional scene, but
are overlooked due to lack of distribution and airplay.  The internet is
changing this.

For some samples of superlative Electro-Acoustic music, check out the
snippets of Rick Petersen's works at the following location:
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/wm_music.html. These get kudos from many
visitors to my web site.

If you want to talk about "over-intellectualized," I would put the review
into that classification.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Grant, is that you trolling... :-)

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Zobel [mailto:synaptic_music@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [wiardgroup] Review of "Electric Sound" by Joel Chadabe
> 
> 
> hello grant,
> 
> a really interesting post.
> i believe that the modern times allow people to do their own
> style of music, which doesn't have to fit into categories.
> lots of people do music for themselves and they don't have
> other listeners in their mind, they don't have to make a living
> with their music. for me that means 'freedom'. maybe the biggest
> achievement of all the electronic instruments is that we can do
> complex music at home, with timbres which are impossible on
> other instruments, and it doesn't have to sound like crappy
> homerecording. this also means that the music is less uniformed,
> maybe less understandable and for sure less marketable.
> i also believe that there are real masterpieces of electronic
> music out there, but there is simply too much music, so nobody
> takes notice of it. it also depends on the preferred style of
> music to be able to recognize a masterpiece.
> 
> the author of the review stated that makers of electronic
> music may be arrogant because their concepts are
> over-intellectualized. reading such a statement makes me
> understand why so many women were burned as witches a long
> time ago.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> schrieb: > I found this on
> Amazon.com in a reader's review.
> >
> > Pretty tough stuff. An interesting observation about the
> > technology being more lively than the users...
> >
> > "Although there was a spate of published historical surveys of
> > electronic music during the early-to-mid 1970's, with the
> > exception of Peter Manning's *Electronic & Computer Music*,
> > there have been almost no synoptic overviews of the subject
> > since then. Now comes Joel Chadabe's *Electric Sound*. One
> > must admit that Chadabe's book does fill a void in the historical
> > consideration of electronic music, and, for that reason alone, I
> > wish that I could be more enthusiastic about it. The focus of this
> > extremely overpriced paperbound book, however, is less on the
> > significant achievements of composers of electronic music than
> > it is on the technological means of creating it. One is hard
> > pressed, indeed, to find references to more than a handful of
> > significant compositions. Such an attitude is typical of the
> > Post-Modern mentality (and, yes, there is such a thing, I'm sorry
> > to say), in which artists of all stripes arrogantly offer
> > over-intellectualized concepts and elaborate compositional and
> > performance processes as justification for whatever results they
> > achieve, no matter how nugatory these results may be. Here,
> > one finds an inadvertent confirmation of that most basic critique
> > of electronic music: That it is ultimately the soundtrack to a
> > futuristic, technocratic nightmare in which the technology itself
> > has become more vibrant and alive than those who create and
> > ostensibly manipulate it. If one were to go by this book, then one
> > would be justified in believing that, with perhaps the exception of
> > Stockhausen's works, there have been no masterpieces of
> > electronic music whatsoever. There has, however, been a lot of
> > interesting hardware and software created for it. Could there be
> > a more damning indictment of any artistic field of endeavor?"
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> =====
> http://www.dron.de
> http://www.selfoscillate.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0€.
> Sie sparen 119€ und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung.
> http://de.adsl.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>

> Grant, is that you trolling... :-)
> 

Guilty as charged.

However the reviewer raises an interesting point. To use an 
analogy of visual painting.

Electronic music equipment designers have created a box of 
paints so enormous that you can't lift the lid anymore.

Or, if you can get the lid off, the box is big enough to get lost 
inside.

The point I see him making is that instrument design has 
progress far faster than the capacity to apply it musically. This is 
what I mean about "designs for Martians". I know mathematically 
that certain designs have application for music generation.

But we haven't begun to understand how to apply the simplest 
ADSR from the 60's, much less advanced designs like a MARF.

The designers of the 60's were designing for a future that has 
not occured yet, and I am designing for a future that may never 
occur at all.

Just as I was saddling up my pinto to ride into the sunset, you HAD 
to go ahead and post that review.

Haven't read the book, but couldn't agree with the reviewer more. 
Outside of the fact that his style is even more bilious than my own, 
*jai pence,* the man is outright inspired. In a single post, he has 
summed up my feeling about the electronic medium and the 
academic "composeurs" (John Cage springs to mind) who have long taken 
refuge in it. Had Grant offered this sooner, you guys would have been 
spared a lot of suffering.  :-)

John L. wrote:

>For some samples of superlative Electro-Acoustic music, check out 
the snippets of Rick Petersen's works at the following location:
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/wm_music.html. These get kudos from 
many visitors to my web site.<

Anybody who hasn't heard these pieces should unplug his Wogglebug(TM) 
right now and hightail it to John's excellent site for a listen. I 
consider these to be the best synth demos on the net. 

Grant wrote:

>Electronic music equipment designers have created a box of
paints so enormous that you can't lift the lid anymore.<

This is another good one. Somebody needs to write a Book of 
Richterian Quotations.

Hmmmmm... Could "Grant's Paintbox" become the next "Schrodinger's 
Cat?"  :-)

There is nothing so limiting as "infinite possibilities."  When you 
think about it, infinity is as good as zero.  That's a big reason I 
have always preferred analog synths to digital synths. The 
limitations they impose give you a framework in which to work. It's 
like poetry. Forms such as sonnets, sestinas and haiku free the 
writer by forcing him to conform to the metrical expectations of the 
reader.  "Blank verse," on the other hand, is simply a paragraph 
arranged in an amusing way (is it any wonder that the worst poetry 
invariably falls into this ubiquitous category?). 

It is prudence to remember that great painters need only a few colors 
to create masterpieces. They have no need of crayons marked "flesh 
tone." So it is with analog synths. Bells, whistles and gewgaws only 
clutter up the paintbox. The greatest freedom lies in limitation.

johnm

Grant,

You are hereby invited to visit my home studio anytime and see whether I any
part of my modular is beyond my capacity to apply musically.  :-)

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: grantrichter2001 [mailto:grichter@asapnet.net]


> Electronic music equipment designers have created a box of
> paints so enormous that you can't lift the lid anymore.
> 
> Or, if you can get the lid off, the box is big enough to get lost
> inside.
> 
> The point I see him making is that instrument design has
> progress far faster than the capacity to apply it musically. This is
> what I mean about "designs for Martians". I know mathematically
> that certain designs have application for music generation.
> 
> But we haven't begun to understand how to apply the simplest
> ADSR from the 60's, much less advanced designs like a MARF.
> 
> The designers of the 60's were designing for a future that has
> not occured yet, and I am designing for a future that may never
> occur at all.
>

--- grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> schrieb: > > Grant, is that
you trolling... :-)
> > 
> 
> Guilty as charged.
> 
> However the reviewer raises an interesting point. To use an 
> analogy of visual painting.
> 
> Electronic music equipment designers have created a box of 
> paints so enormous that you can't lift the lid anymore.
> 
> Or, if you can get the lid off, the box is big enough to get lost 
> inside.
> 
> The point I see him making is that instrument design has 
> progress far faster than the capacity to apply it musically. This is 
> what I mean about "designs for Martians". I know mathematically 
> that certain designs have application for music generation.
> 
> But we haven't begun to understand how to apply the simplest 
> ADSR from the 60's, much less advanced designs like a MARF.
> 
> The designers of the 60's were designing for a future that has 
> not occured yet, and I am designing for a future that may never 
> occur at all.


i personally use a modular because i found those standard
analogue synths too limiting. i always wished that my mono/poly
had a highpass filter and a third envelope, but it didn't.
so it seems logical to go modular.
i don't see modulars as a box of infinite possibilities,
because there is a limit in the count of modules (unless your
name is hans zimmer). things like an adsr are quite simple
and if we still don't understand how to apply it, then we also
haven't used a doorbell properly during all those years :-)

and grant, i can see that the future is near and you are
a glorious part of it :-)

best wishes

ingo


=====
http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 100MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de

At 04:16 PM 7/1/04 +0000, "grantrichter2001" <grichter@asapnet.net> wrote:
> > Grant, is that you trolling... :-)
>
>Guilty as charged.
>
>However the reviewer raises an interesting point. To use an
>analogy of visual painting.
>
>Electronic music equipment designers have created a box of
>paints so enormous that you can't lift the lid anymore.
>
>Or, if you can get the lid off, the box is big enough to get lost
>inside.
>
>The point I see him making is that instrument design has
>progress far faster than the capacity to apply it musically. This is
>what I mean about "designs for Martians". I know mathematically
>that certain designs have application for music generation.
>
>But we haven't begun to understand how to apply the simplest
>ADSR from the 60's, much less advanced designs like a MARF.
>
>The designers of the 60's were designing for a future that has
>not occured yet, and I am designing for a future that may never
>occur at all.

Every instrument has taken a long time for its full potential to be 
discovered & utilized.  Charlie Parker and John Coltrane were 30? 50? years 
after the invention of the saxophone.  It took well over a hundred years 
from its invention for the romatic composers of the 1800s to get lost 
enough inside that large black box called the pianoforte to find its 
emotional potential.  The fact that Jimi Hendrix came less than 20 years 
after the invention of the electric guitar (not counting electrified steels 
[btw it is the LAP steel, not the pedal steel, which is commonly used in 
"Don Ho" Hawaiian music]) is probably a testimony to the massive popularity 
(and mass manufacture) of the instrument.  And those instruments all have 
extremely diverse usages - it even took nearly a decade to figure out the 
one trick in that pony called the TB-303.

The "electronic music synthesizer" complicates things by being an entire 
class of instruments, rather than a single instrument.  With the different 
classes ranging from the VCS3 to the Triton to the General MIDI Casio to 
the DSI Evolver to softsynths of every flavor, the situation is further 
complicated by the wealth of control interfaces (wheras most existing 
instruments, or even classes of instrument, have one control interface or 
combination of interfaces).  The possibilities aren't *infinite*, but the 
instrument *is* much more open-ended than any that came before it.

And again, with most instruments, there are also people who obsess over the 
"insides of the box" - the different woods, finishes & glues used for 
string instruments (not to mention the actual strings), or 
sax/oboe/bassoon/clarinet players' obsessions over reeds & 
mouthpieces.  Sometimes, the people who know the most about those are 
"non-players" (as were Bob & Don) whose expertise might be in woodworking 
instead of electronics.

It's true that there are many electronic pieces that fall into the category 
of "academic exercise" rather than art (and in my opinion, using an 
electronic music synthesizer to perform classical orchestral music IS an 
academic exercise).  But sometimes academic exercises are necessary to 
advance the state of the art (playing Hindemeth exercises sure as hell 
isn't art, but the pianist who has spent time playing them will probably be 
better-prepared to play artistic pieces more artistically - or might just 
end up like Nick - "Carpal Tunnel syndrome is all classical music did for 
me" is a great quote!).

So in conclusion, I must find the reviewer's criticisms to be mostly 
unfounded.  We must expect long waits before artistic breakthroughs on 
*any* instrument, and the complexity/open-endedness (and lack of market 
saturation like the electric guitar in the 1960s) of the synthesizer means 
that we may have to wait even longer than the not-quite-50 years the 
instrument has been around.  Every instrument, too, will have practicioners 
more concerned with the "nuts and bolts" or technological aspects than the 
artistic aspects, which is human nature; some people are artists, and some 
people are technicians (some are both, some are neither).  And while 
"academic" or "conceptual" pieces may not be art in themselves, they still 
may be necessary to advance the state of the art.

         -Doug
          jasret@mindspring.com

Doug wins the Konkuro Sangrael Award(TM), for a post that sums the 
whole discussion up perfectly.  Excellent!  It would make a good 
article.

Fully sated, I can now take my leave.

Thanks once again to Grant and the gang for the posts, demos and a 
generally engaging and educational experience.  You may now return to 
your Woggling.

And with that, it's a wrap.  Back to lurking.

For now...

johnm


--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Doug Pearson <jasret@m...> wrote:
> 
> Every instrument has taken a long time for its full potential to be 
> discovered & utilized.  Charlie Parker and John Coltrane were 30? 
50? years 
> after the invention of the saxophone.  It took well over a hundred 
years 
> from its invention for the romatic composers of the 1800s to get 
lost 
> enough inside that large black box called the pianoforte to find 
its 
> emotional potential.  The fact that Jimi Hendrix came less than 20 
years 
> after the invention of the electric guitar (not counting 
electrified steels 
> [btw it is the LAP steel, not the pedal steel, which is commonly 
used in 
> "Don Ho" Hawaiian music]) is probably a testimony to the massive 
popularity 
> (and mass manufacture) of the instrument.  And those instruments 
all have 
> extremely diverse usages - it even took nearly a decade to figure 
out the 
> one trick in that pony called the TB-303.
> 
> The "electronic music synthesizer" complicates things by being an 
entire 
> class of instruments, rather than a single instrument.  With the 
different 
> classes ranging from the VCS3 to the Triton to the General MIDI 
Casio to 
> the DSI Evolver to softsynths of every flavor, the situation is 
further 
> complicated by the wealth of control interfaces (wheras most 
existing 
> instruments, or even classes of instrument, have one control 
interface or 
> combination of interfaces).  The possibilities aren't *infinite*, 
but the 
> instrument *is* much more open-ended than any that came before it.
> 
> And again, with most instruments, there are also people who obsess 
over the 
> "insides of the box" - the different woods, finishes & glues used 
for 
> string instruments (not to mention the actual strings), or 
> sax/oboe/bassoon/clarinet players' obsessions over reeds & 
> mouthpieces.  Sometimes, the people who know the most about those 
are 
> "non-players" (as were Bob & Don) whose expertise might be in 
woodworking 
> instead of electronics.
> 
> It's true that there are many electronic pieces that fall into the 
category 
> of "academic exercise" rather than art (and in my opinion, using an 
> electronic music synthesizer to perform classical orchestral music 
IS an 
> academic exercise).  But sometimes academic exercises are necessary 
to 
> advance the state of the art (playing Hindemeth exercises sure as 
hell 
> isn't art, but the pianist who has spent time playing them will 
probably be 
> better-prepared to play artistic pieces more artistically - or 
might just 
> end up like Nick - "Carpal Tunnel syndrome is all classical music 
did for 
> me" is a great quote!).
> 
> So in conclusion, I must find the reviewer's criticisms to be 
mostly 
> unfounded.  We must expect long waits before artistic breakthroughs 
on 
> *any* instrument, and the complexity/open-endedness (and lack of 
market 
> saturation like the electric guitar in the 1960s) of the 
synthesizer means 
> that we may have to wait even longer than the not-quite-50 years 
the 
> instrument has been around.  Every instrument, too, will have 
practicioners 
> more concerned with the "nuts and bolts" or technological aspects 
than the 
> artistic aspects, which is human nature; some people are artists, 
and some 
> people are technicians (some are both, some are neither).  And 
while 
> "academic" or "conceptual" pieces may not be art in themselves, 
they still 

> may be necessary to advance the state of the art.
> 
>          -Doug
>           jasret@m...

> Fully sated, I can now take my leave.
Bye byee..........