It's the seductive rub, isn't it ? But here I am this morning reading Xenakis's Formalized Music in which he outright advocates the button pushing. I don't think he suggests that conventional ear training, harmony practice, counterpoint, etc. have no more value in such a scenario - on the contrary, his own work indicates deep musical involvement at every level of his compositions.glokraw wrote:Your mention of luminaries from a generation not far passed,
reminds me that I find myself being constantly drawn towards becoming
more of a 'button pusher', than a composer, where one practices utilizing
various software and hardware tools, more than developing musicianship,
or composition skills.
Here's an interesting quote from the chapter on composing stochastic music with a computer :
"Music, by its very abstract nature, is the first of the arts to have attempted the conciliation of artistic creation with scientific thought. Its industrialization is inevitable and irreversible."
Out of context it's a provocative remark. Given that it was made in 1963 puts a rather different shine on it.
Antique criticism of "computer music" often referred to its incorporeal nature, its lack of physicality. Always struck me as a bogue critique, though I believe there's some truth in its muddle. But that non-corporeality doesn't bother me - I take the radical view that once it's in the mic/line it's all electronic music. It's certainly no longer only the acoustic performance - if there is one - and it's all subject to whatever manipulations you have available.The tools are wonderful, and I wouldn't want anyone to miss out
on the productivity/creativity they enable, but I also feel the need to
be real, in the sense of pounding the hollow log with accuracy,
and experiencing the satisfaction that rides with it. There is
almost a thieves delight in discovering some new software trick,
or feature, when actually composing/playing a complex/rewarding part
with the relative ease and confidence achieved by diligent practice,
would be a much sweeter serving.
That said, there's no true understanding of that musical corporeality without a direct involvement, i.e. singing and/or playing an instrument. Personally I'm broad-minded about what constitutes an instrument - respect to DJs and to Harry Partch - so I'm okay with whatever gets your hands into the dough. Now work it.
Paul Lansky once noted that those early pioneers had one thing in common among their many approaches to using the computer to make music - they listened, intensely and repeatedly. They did not take for granted the computer's capabilities, it was all terra incognita, and they were indeed like explorers in new lands.
Well, in some ways practice is optional. The point of some software is to reduce the bar to entry, sometimes radically so. In the end, no-one is going to accidentally create anything of much worth. Our personal music culture is our measure, we evaluate music with other music we recall. It's in effect when we create music too, guiding our judgement like an invisible hand. It's also why it can be difficult to discuss music - each of us has our own culture, and only our shared referents provide a basis for shared understanding.Sure, there are marvelous sequences, arpeggios, and layers of drones,
just begging to be unleashed, but I am leary of a hidden cost to them,
a devil on the shoulder, quoting a fine print that reads,
'Practice is optional, go ahead, just press the blue button,
you know you want to!'
Anyway, there are musics and musical processes that still await exploration, on and off the machines. Some will require practice in the time-honored senses, others will not. Value will remain in the ear of the beholder. The creator still relies on his own artistic, technical, and critical skills. The making of deep involving music still requires deep involvement from the maker.
I'm an unabashed admirer of stuff like GarageBand and Guitar Hero. Not surprisingly, a good percentage of my young students have some experience with such things. YouTube instructional videos are another treasure trove I recommend they pillage. These things do no harm, as far as I can tell.
Of course, I also know that there are many things in music that cannot be learned except by hard apprenticeship. Ear-training, formal or otherwise, is an indispensable skill for serious musicians, and it can be a tough act. Counterpoint study bestows skills found nowhere else, and like the ear-training it can be a frightful task. Obviously the quality of teaching matters here, but again the net's resources put forth new perspectives on finding a good teacher.
Considering the available resources for serious music study I think we live in a fantastic time.
And it's fun !Well, yes, lazy devil, I will indeed press that button, but later,
I am busy now convincing my left hand to respond promptly to
electronic impulses, and actually generating the impulses myself.
I teach beginners, including quite a few adult learners. It's very instructive for me, definitely a demonstration of mind over matter. Some of my older students have picked up the guitar quite late in life, yet they've mastered it far enough to perform locally, playing and singing. They put a lot into their efforts, they don't expect it to be easy, so they plan to work hard. And I charge enough to warrant their motivation.
Eat, drink, and enjoy life.
Best,
dp
)
2014!!! 
greatest website in the universe 
gave it a quick look:
