The Big Dark Relativistic Pit

chysn · « **on:** February 08, 2016, 12:19:46 PM »

The title of this topic is stolen from a lovely term coined by Sacred Synthesis, who doesn't think this is the place for a philosophical discussion. But I think it sounds fun.

What is music, anyway?

(The big dark relativistic pit is pitch black. We're likely to be eaten by a grue....)

I'll start. My favorite definition is from John Cage invoking Edgard Varèse. "Music is organized sound."

dslsynth · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:22:19 PM »

Great topic!

And then he made 4:33!

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:28:10 PM »

chysn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:36:52 PM »

Quote from: dslsynth on February 08, 2016, 12:22:19 PM

And then he made 4:33!

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on February 08, 2016, 12:28:10 PM

That's the spirit!

dslsynth · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:48:26 PM »

Just like inside jets of quasars: relativistic chock waves. Now translate that into music!

Besides, Sacred Synthesis, I do remember that discussion on the old forum so I certainly understand your reaction. No need to prove Godwin's Law this time around. Just remember that its a fundamental property of Internet discussions.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:49:13 PM »

Haha, great thread so far - jumping right into the abyss.

Speaking in general terms, I would add the notion of music as a means to manipulate time. – "You see, my son, here time becomes space." (Wagner, Parsifal)

dslsynth · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2016, 12:51:57 PM »

Somebody gotta invent non-linear time music! For lyrics consider studying Douglas Adam's grammar extensions for time travel.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:03:13 PM »

Quote from: dslsynth on February 08, 2016, 12:51:57 PM

Somebody gotta invent non-linear time music! For lyrics consider studying Douglas Adam's grammar extensions for time travel.

You can mess up linearity with the synchronic structure, at least if you consider temporal linearity as something that can be measured in a rationalistic and objective way, like minutes, hours, etc. Depending on the amount of information that's been given in a certain amount of time, you can manipulate the way that amount of time is going to be perceived, e.g. fast, slow, etc.

A mix of genres could also undermine the notion of linearity, i.e. if you make use of several different approches simultaneously. That would be the content driven variation.

dslsynth · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:11:55 PM »

Agreed, the non-linearity have to target the perception. Now, Lars von Trier would love such a challenge.

Besides, I think we all can agree on that one persons definition of music is another persons definition of noise. Not much to debate really. But surely a cool topic title!

Paul Dither · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:16:30 PM »

Quote from: dslsynth on February 08, 2016, 01:11:55 PM

Agreed, the non-linearity have to target the perception. Now, Lars von Trier would love such a challenge.

Well, I guess that would apply to anyone, who's interested in challenging narrative forms, which is basically one of the main themes of modernity.

dslsynth · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:24:06 PM »

Engineer discuses with a humanist. This is going to get interesting!

. o O ( rtfm modernity fast )

Paul Dither · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2016, 01:50:17 PM »

"Time is out of joint." - First came Shakespeare, then Einstein.

This is not OT btw. 'Joint' is 'Fuge' in German = fugue.

Strange Quark Star · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2016, 03:47:25 PM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on February 08, 2016, 01:50:17 PM

"Time is out of joint." - First came Shakespeare, then Einstein.

And then Philip K. Dick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Out_of_Joint

Paul Dither · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2016, 03:54:38 PM »

We've gone dystopian quite quickly…

chysn · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2016, 06:28:03 PM »

Yeah, I was about to go Philip K. Dick there, as well.

See, isn't this more fun than vehemently agreeing with each other about how kick-ass awesome the OB-6 is?

Paul Dither · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2016, 06:32:59 PM »

Quote from: chysn on February 08, 2016, 06:28:03 PM

See, isn't this more fun than vehemently agreeing with each other about how kick-ass awesome the OB-6 is?

Hey, I just ordered a Prophet-6 after the NAMM!

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2016, 06:06:28 AM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on February 08, 2016, 01:50:17 PM

This is not OT btw. 'Joint' is 'Fuge' in German = fugue.

Now that would be an interesting topic: musical form, thematic development, reverence for purposeful rules, and beauty by design. Every piece I've posted in the last two years has these; every one includes design, form, a general scheme - including the improvisations. None of it is experimental. On the occasions I've "experimented," I haven't liked the results.

I've composed about twelve fugues, but I'd like to return to the form and compose many more. Unfortunately, the pedal playing in the pieces is so involved that I'm not able to perform any of them on my current set up. That little Hammond XPK 200L pedalboard is the biggest musical obstacle I face. But fugues sound exceptional on synthesizer, especially with an Oberheim-ish PWM patch. Such music requires full length pedalboards and keyboards, which is one reason I simply can't work with anything less.

Paul, I believe you have a piece on your YouTube channel or somewhere else that's a sort of fugue or passacaglia - isn't that right?

Paul Dither · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:12:16 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on February 09, 2016, 06:06:28 AM

Now that would be an interesting topic: musical form, thematic development, reverence for purposeful rules, and beauty by design. Every piece I've posted in the last two years has these; every one includes design, form, a general scheme - including the improvisations. None of it is experimental. On the occasions I've "experimented," I haven't liked the results.

Still your pieces don't come across as restrictive; they always unfold quite organically if that makes sense. So even by design (that puts things "in joint") you get something that doesn't seem to be designed (out of joint).

Paul Dither · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:23:14 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on February 09, 2016, 06:06:28 AM

Paul, I believe you have a piece on your YouTube channel or somewhere else that's a sort of fugue or passacaglia - isn't that right?

You mean this one?

I followed a more technological approach. I used exactly the same sequence four times with different sounds. Then I altered the tempo of each sequence by a multiple of the original clock division (half speed, double speed, etc.). I added further variations by dropping certain notes, inserting some ties, or by changing the running order of one of the sequences. Then I recorded each sequence to a separate track. But before each recording, I slightly altered the tempo. 120 BPM was the default. The other three tracks were recorded at 118, 119, and 121 BPM. They all start at the same time, but slowly run out of joint.

tumble2k · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2016, 12:50:41 PM »

You guys are so restrained! We need to give our good moderator something to do.

I think music is like pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I (hear) it.

I'm no fan of relativism. At the same time I'm sure my views of music are completely colored by what I have experienced so far. I think the beauty of life is that there are many things we know but we can't define. Music may be one of those. Truth, beauty, justice, compassion, kindness, nature, and what some would call God.

Sorry my post now has both "pornography" and "God" in the same sentence.