thanks for all the replies to this thread, guys. :-)
keep 'em comin'.
experimental music lovers unite!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111326 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
anything from process to chance. so long as there is something of a thought behind it, not just randomness for the sake of it.rachmiel wrote: what types of experimental music do you listen to?
although sometimes even that can work, its a fine line i guess.
although i do agree with others that experimental is the process not the outcome, and it is when dealing with recordings unfirtunately a "final outcome".
im not a fan of process over content though, i like to hear things without knowing whats gone on, if i like them or find them of interest in some way, then i will look into what went into it.
...
who are some of your favorite experimental bands/composers?
those of an experimental nature would include...
cage, stockhausen, the residents, reich, sonic youth, throbbing gristle and ah fuggit this could go on all night....
not everything is pure experimental either, i wouldnt say TG are massively experimental but a lot of compositions are built in a "ill do this, see what you can add" fashion, which gives them an organic quality that many indutrial/electronic acts dont have.
...
i experiment, whether its music isnt my call to make yet.do you make (compose, perform) experimental music?
im not actually sure yet what exactly music is.
...
please share links of experimental music sites you find worthwhile.
if i had em, they would be here...
...
what do you think of the experimental music 'scene' on kvr?
there is a good group of people who seem supportive, most of all interested. while i personally am not a big word person when it comes to my own stuff, i do enjoy getting involved discussing others processes and equipment and such. there arent many people in the real world around here who are into the kind of thing i like doing, so its good to have someone to chat to.
...
thanks!
rachMiel
no probs!
-
- KVRAF
- 1585 posts since 13 Nov, 2005 from St. Paul
what types of experimental music do you listen to?
- i've always found terms that are descriptive of the sound of the music more informative than the blanket experimental label, but it's probably best to leave that oft-trod ground for that other active thread on this issue. it's a bit like that classic definition of pornography--i don't know how to define it, but i know it when i see it.
for types of music that i think most people would call experimental, it depends on who's doing the music, of course, but i generally like aleatoric/free improvisation, krautrock, the rougher end of ambient music (not the 20 minute pad of sleep that they play at malls), and some of the 20th century concert music. a fair amount involves live performance, but i like some pure manipulation too.
- brian eno, robert fripp, dj spooky, gyorgy ligeti, morton subotnick, king tubby, j dilla, philip jeck, steve reich, soviet:france and reformed faction, evan parker, paul bley, herbie hancock (as "mwandishi" he did some very outside synthesizer stuff with free jazz), sun ra, ornette coleman, john coltrane, matthew shipp, fennesz, the early kraftwerk stuff (that stuff they won't re-release), neu!, faust, can, sonic youth (syr is the experimental stuff), boredoms, john zorn, kammerflimmer kollektief, iannis xenakis, cluster, animal collective, etc.
- maybe. i don't know, whether i am classified as experimental depends on a combination of the particular piece i'm doing and the definition of the reviewer. i'm pretty sure some of it is "experimental" and some isn't. i usually don't know the difference when i'm making things though.
- http://destination-out.com/
http://loopyc.com/
http://www.kranky.net/
http://www.therestisnoise.com/
http://www.djspooky.com/media.php
- there's a lot to like here.
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
Oh. I'll bite. If only to make some half-assed attempted at creating discourse on the subject.
As has been already mentioned a few times in this thread, I find the term "experimental" to be highly subjective. I also disagree that the term "experimental" cannot apply to Top 40 music. I will go further and venture to say that I Am The Walrus is a very experimental song.
I think the mental disconnect here, for me, is the full phrase "experimental music". Anytime a musician thinks outside the box, or makes a grab at the unknown, that result is experimental music. Anytime a musician says "What would happen if I route this into this?" and that result is recorded, it becomes experimental music: whether the person responsible was Brian Eno making music for airports or Hugh Padgham producing pop music for Phil Collins. The 80s were rife with what I would call "experimental music", in that the wealth of new technology enabled artists to experiment with production and orchestration techniques that could be wholly unique to their own endeavors. And, strangely enough, all this experimentation still managed to produce some seriously catchy pop music, that even the proles and plebes enjoyed.
The downside to this is that it is mostly "proof of concept", and once the concept is proven, and the experiment recorded, it ceases to be experimental. As soon as the method is duplicated, it becomes, not necessarily rote, but exponentially more predictable. If the outcome can be predicted with a degree of certainty, I would have a hard time deeming the procedure "experimental". We use the term "experimental" as a convenient term for sound or music that doesn't always adhere to the normal tenets of popular or established music, but I think that it is a flawed term in the sense that most of what we imagine when we use the term is hardly "experimental" in the eyes of the composer/performer. We may think that it is unusual, strange, unique or original, but the composer/performer has likely already perfected the concept and is familiar enough with it to be comfortable with the outcome of their composition/performance.
From personal experience, the first time I thought "I wonder what would happen if I took a violin bow to this piece of metal ductwork", I was conducting the experiment. Five minutes later, I knew the outcome and could predict the results, with alarming accuracy, of the action. Now when I bow a piece of metal, I know what is going to happen. It's not an experiment; it's routine. Even when I perform live and just grab a bunch of random gear, throw it in a bag and wing it when I get to the venue, I'm familiar enough with the individual pieces that the experimentation is in the composition, not the performance.
I think that, overall, the entire concept needs a new term. I'll be the first in line to adopt the term, if I feel it adequately sums up what Rick intended when he used the term "experimental" in the OP.
As has been already mentioned a few times in this thread, I find the term "experimental" to be highly subjective. I also disagree that the term "experimental" cannot apply to Top 40 music. I will go further and venture to say that I Am The Walrus is a very experimental song.
I think the mental disconnect here, for me, is the full phrase "experimental music". Anytime a musician thinks outside the box, or makes a grab at the unknown, that result is experimental music. Anytime a musician says "What would happen if I route this into this?" and that result is recorded, it becomes experimental music: whether the person responsible was Brian Eno making music for airports or Hugh Padgham producing pop music for Phil Collins. The 80s were rife with what I would call "experimental music", in that the wealth of new technology enabled artists to experiment with production and orchestration techniques that could be wholly unique to their own endeavors. And, strangely enough, all this experimentation still managed to produce some seriously catchy pop music, that even the proles and plebes enjoyed.
The downside to this is that it is mostly "proof of concept", and once the concept is proven, and the experiment recorded, it ceases to be experimental. As soon as the method is duplicated, it becomes, not necessarily rote, but exponentially more predictable. If the outcome can be predicted with a degree of certainty, I would have a hard time deeming the procedure "experimental". We use the term "experimental" as a convenient term for sound or music that doesn't always adhere to the normal tenets of popular or established music, but I think that it is a flawed term in the sense that most of what we imagine when we use the term is hardly "experimental" in the eyes of the composer/performer. We may think that it is unusual, strange, unique or original, but the composer/performer has likely already perfected the concept and is familiar enough with it to be comfortable with the outcome of their composition/performance.
From personal experience, the first time I thought "I wonder what would happen if I took a violin bow to this piece of metal ductwork", I was conducting the experiment. Five minutes later, I knew the outcome and could predict the results, with alarming accuracy, of the action. Now when I bow a piece of metal, I know what is going to happen. It's not an experiment; it's routine. Even when I perform live and just grab a bunch of random gear, throw it in a bag and wing it when I get to the venue, I'm familiar enough with the individual pieces that the experimentation is in the composition, not the performance.
I think that, overall, the entire concept needs a new term. I'll be the first in line to adopt the term, if I feel it adequately sums up what Rick intended when he used the term "experimental" in the OP.
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
i like the term 'experimental' because:
- i dislike the alternatives: new, progressive, alternative, uptown/downtown, avant garde (okay i kind of do like that one, but it's so 20th century)
- it makes me think of a mad scientist's laboratory (pronounced: la-BORE-a-try) from a frankenstein movie: yummmmmmmmy!
- personally i love the idea of endless experimentation (in the sense of let's give this a try, then move on to the next as-yet-unexplored thing) for all involved: composer, listeners, performers, etc.
how about "mad music" ... ? ;-)
- i dislike the alternatives: new, progressive, alternative, uptown/downtown, avant garde (okay i kind of do like that one, but it's so 20th century)
- it makes me think of a mad scientist's laboratory (pronounced: la-BORE-a-try) from a frankenstein movie: yummmmmmmmy!
- personally i love the idea of endless experimentation (in the sense of let's give this a try, then move on to the next as-yet-unexplored thing) for all involved: composer, listeners, performers, etc.
how about "mad music" ... ? ;-)
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
I always consider what you do with Reaktor to be "experimental", because (and, understand that I don't use Reaktor, so I'm basing this on assumption more than actual knowledge) most of what I've heard from you in that realm has been ensemble "proof of concept" pieces. It strikes me that the "product" (ie the track) is merely the end result of the experimentation. Not to say that there is anything wrong with that method, since you have produced some seriously great pieces this way, but that it's a different methodology than I use. For that particular body of work, the title is appropriate.
I would consider circuit bending something from scratch to be "experimental", but after it is bent and explored, anything made with that circuit bent piece is not "experimental". You're not exploring anything new. You're taking what you've learned in your explorations and applying that knowledge practically in the production of new material.
"Mad music" makes me think of Mark (mystahr), maybe if only because I always refer to him as a Mad Dutchman. But, for me, when you use the term "experimental", most of the styles you invoke aren't musical at all. They are largely atonal and utterly lacking in melody. They all have their own amorphous pigeonholes (abstract, dark ambient, ambient, noise, electroacoustic, etc. etc.), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the name I give to a certain style is congruent with the definition that you or anyone else applies to that term. "Ambient" is a perfect example of that, in that it seems to cover everything from vurt to Future Sound of London, and I'll be arsed if I can figure out the common sonic thread between those two artists.
Titles are titles. And they come with opinions. And we all know what opinions are like. I prefer to think of what I do as "anti-music" first, and then possibly "electroacoustic", "harsh ambient", "drone" or "soft noise", as the case may be. Some people hate the term "anti-music" because it seems to imply a (and certainly can lead to inference of) concerted rejection of, or rebellion to, traditional music styles. Me? I consider it more of a freedom from the confines of structure and form, and an opportunity to explore sound for the sake of exploring sound. To hear textures as one might view them in a painting. Some people just like to make noise because it's fun and it annoys others.
As me pop used to always say (and likely still does): "Six of one; half dozen of another."
I would consider circuit bending something from scratch to be "experimental", but after it is bent and explored, anything made with that circuit bent piece is not "experimental". You're not exploring anything new. You're taking what you've learned in your explorations and applying that knowledge practically in the production of new material.
"Mad music" makes me think of Mark (mystahr), maybe if only because I always refer to him as a Mad Dutchman. But, for me, when you use the term "experimental", most of the styles you invoke aren't musical at all. They are largely atonal and utterly lacking in melody. They all have their own amorphous pigeonholes (abstract, dark ambient, ambient, noise, electroacoustic, etc. etc.), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the name I give to a certain style is congruent with the definition that you or anyone else applies to that term. "Ambient" is a perfect example of that, in that it seems to cover everything from vurt to Future Sound of London, and I'll be arsed if I can figure out the common sonic thread between those two artists.
Titles are titles. And they come with opinions. And we all know what opinions are like. I prefer to think of what I do as "anti-music" first, and then possibly "electroacoustic", "harsh ambient", "drone" or "soft noise", as the case may be. Some people hate the term "anti-music" because it seems to imply a (and certainly can lead to inference of) concerted rejection of, or rebellion to, traditional music styles. Me? I consider it more of a freedom from the confines of structure and form, and an opportunity to explore sound for the sake of exploring sound. To hear textures as one might view them in a painting. Some people just like to make noise because it's fun and it annoys others.
As me pop used to always say (and likely still does): "Six of one; half dozen of another."
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- 1585 posts since 13 Nov, 2005 from St. Paul
hah, i was typing the text below as mr. intel was writing essentially along the same lines.
this is another layer of semantics, but i agree that the term "music" can also be unnecessary baggage for experimentalists. sometimes people will critique anything that doesn't have the canonical set of attributes like (metered) rhythms, harmony, melody, conventional instrumental timbres as fundamentally failed. my reason for questioning the label of "music" is because that music label sticks the uninformed audience into the wrong frame of mind. they critique the aural experience as "not music." once they've made that judgment, they stop listening. but if you strip that music label away and just say it's a different type of aural experience altogether, that seeming criticism of "not music" melts away. now the listener is clearly forewarned that new rules are in play, so they have to develop an opinion of the thing in itself, which they might not actually mind on it's own terms.
most experimental sound making (for want of a better term) requires a completely different way of listening than one would use for something like a symphony or a pop song. if someone listens to stockhausen like they'd listen to a gershwin tune, of course they'll be disappointed. the very nature of the two aural experiences requires different cognitive operations, a very different set of expectations.
another reason i wonder about this is because we have so many different distinct categories for the visual arts, like sculpture, painting, architecture, but we still use the catch all of "music" for all audio arts.
that might just be my opinion, i've always been curious if other people who sometimes make organized (or disorganized) sounds that don't resemble conventional music see things this way.
this is another layer of semantics, but i agree that the term "music" can also be unnecessary baggage for experimentalists. sometimes people will critique anything that doesn't have the canonical set of attributes like (metered) rhythms, harmony, melody, conventional instrumental timbres as fundamentally failed. my reason for questioning the label of "music" is because that music label sticks the uninformed audience into the wrong frame of mind. they critique the aural experience as "not music." once they've made that judgment, they stop listening. but if you strip that music label away and just say it's a different type of aural experience altogether, that seeming criticism of "not music" melts away. now the listener is clearly forewarned that new rules are in play, so they have to develop an opinion of the thing in itself, which they might not actually mind on it's own terms.
most experimental sound making (for want of a better term) requires a completely different way of listening than one would use for something like a symphony or a pop song. if someone listens to stockhausen like they'd listen to a gershwin tune, of course they'll be disappointed. the very nature of the two aural experiences requires different cognitive operations, a very different set of expectations.
another reason i wonder about this is because we have so many different distinct categories for the visual arts, like sculpture, painting, architecture, but we still use the catch all of "music" for all audio arts.
that might just be my opinion, i've always been curious if other people who sometimes make organized (or disorganized) sounds that don't resemble conventional music see things this way.
-
Voidoid Surrealist Voidoid Surrealist https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=41079
- KVRAF
- 4048 posts since 18 Sep, 2004 from Places far less tedious than this blue trainwreck...
Personally, I feel that making such semantic concessions for the narrow minded isn't worth the effort, as it just encourages their "that's not music!" bullshit mentality.jmeier wrote:they critique the aural experience as "not music." once they've made that judgment, they stop listening. but if you strip that music label away and just say it's a different type of aural experience altogether, that seeming criticism of "not music" melts away. now the listener is clearly forewarned that new rules are in play, so they have to develop an opinion of the thing in itself, which they might not actually mind on it's own terms.
If someone wants to call their work an "aural sculpture" (or any other such term) because they identify their work with that term closer than they do with the term "music"… sure, more power to ya. However, if I have to describe a piece of my music as an *insert non-music euphemism here* for Joe Blow to get it, then he's most likely not someone I'd be interested in hearing an opinion from in the first place.
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
On the other hand, calling it "music" in the first place is disingenuous, because it is decidedly NOT "music". If you're going about referring to your endeavors as something other "music" to appease the masses, then you're missing the point altogether. I wouldn't call Britney Spears a cake. Sure, they're both fluffy and taste better with a light cream cheese-based frosting, but that's where the similarities end. My work can only be compared to music in the sense that both are (with a certain amount of pretension) forms of art that are enjoyed aurally. After that, the similarities end.
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
The unfortunate thing, in my experience, is that the majority of people aren't willing to expend the effort to develop those new expectations and that different set of cognitive operations to appreciate this particular brand of sound. Hell, it took me years to get to the point where I could appreciate it. The thing that most people don't realize is that once you learn how to listen to this stuff, you really do enjoy it as much as you do "normal" music.jmeier wrote:most experimental sound making (for want of a better term) requires a completely different way of listening than one would use for something like a symphony or a pop song. if someone listens to stockhausen like they'd listen to a gershwin tune, of course they'll be disappointed. the very nature of the two aural experiences requires different cognitive operations, a very different set of expectations.
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
> I always consider what you do with Reaktor to be "experimental", because (and, understand that I don't use Reaktor, so I'm basing this on assumption more than actual knowledge) most of what I've heard from you in that realm has been ensemble "proof of concept" pieces. It strikes me that the "product" (ie the track) is merely the end result of the experimentation.
that's very perceptive, though i'm not comfortable with "merely" (derogatory) and "proof of concept" (not quite right). when i create reaktor pieces, i let the personality of the instrument(s) determine the character of the music. i almost never think: i need a dramatic synth sweep here. instead, if the instrument i'm using happens to generate dramatic synth sweeps, they'll end up being a key component of the piece. i experiment to find out what an instrument can do (especially in extremis), then i 'excite' the instrument to do it, then i create the form of the piece (i.e., its 'meaning') out of what the instrument has done.
> Not to say that there is anything wrong with that method, since you have produced some seriously great pieces this way.
thank you for that. :-)
that's very perceptive, though i'm not comfortable with "merely" (derogatory) and "proof of concept" (not quite right). when i create reaktor pieces, i let the personality of the instrument(s) determine the character of the music. i almost never think: i need a dramatic synth sweep here. instead, if the instrument i'm using happens to generate dramatic synth sweeps, they'll end up being a key component of the piece. i experiment to find out what an instrument can do (especially in extremis), then i 'excite' the instrument to do it, then i create the form of the piece (i.e., its 'meaning') out of what the instrument has done.
> Not to say that there is anything wrong with that method, since you have produced some seriously great pieces this way.
thank you for that. :-)
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
> On the other hand, calling it "music" in the first place is disingenuous, because it is decidedly NOT "music".
depends on how you define music. my vocal trio was doing a concert/workshop for some very young kids a few weeks ago, and when we asked them how they would describe what 'music' is one 8-year-old said: "Noise that someone likes."
depends on how you define music. my vocal trio was doing a concert/workshop for some very young kids a few weeks ago, and when we asked them how they would describe what 'music' is one 8-year-old said: "Noise that someone likes."
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
Which is almost precisely what I meant. It's more of a demonstration of the ensemble than it is an effort to create a piece of "music". It's the aural output of the digital experimentation that you have done to create that ensemble. Which, again, I would consider to safely fall under the heading of "experimental", in that these pieces are based on your exploration of the specific routing of generators and effects that you've used for the ensemble.rachmiel wrote:i let the personality of the instrument(s) determine the character of the music. i almost never think: i need a dramatic synth sweep here. instead, if the instrument i'm using happens to generate dramatic synth sweeps, they'll end up being a key component of the piece. i experiment to find out what an instrument can do (especially in extremis), then i 'excite' the instrument to do it, then i create the form of the piece (i.e., its 'meaning') out of what the instrument has done.
Again, not meant as a slight. Just making a point as to why I think the term "experimental" is more appropriate for that particular body of your work than it would be for anything that I've produced over the last few years.
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- 2135 posts since 12 Jul, 2004 from Brave New World
And, unfortunately, 8-year old kids don't work as editors for Webster's. As nice as it would be to acknowledge the transience of language and stop accepting commonly held definitions of words, it would cause undesired chaos in human relations. Anyone can make up their own definition for a given word, but when that definition is not shared by anyone else, they're going to have a difficult time expressing themselves effectively. And that's really the only point for having a language in the first place.rachmiel wrote:depends on how you define music. my vocal trio was doing a concert/workshop for some very young kids a few weeks ago, and when we asked them how they would describe what 'music' is one 8-year-old said: "Noise that someone likes."
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." -Carl Zwanzig
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3726 posts since 30 Jan, 2005 from rochester, ny
> It's more of a demonstration of the ensemble than it is an effort to create a piece of "music".
i think of it like this: instead of giving an actor a script that i have created and ask him to learn and perform it, i find an actor i really like and ask him to show me his full range and then together we build a script from the ground up around his 'talents.'
i think of it like this: instead of giving an actor a script that i have created and ask him to learn and perform it, i find an actor i really like and ask him to show me his full range and then together we build a script from the ground up around his 'talents.'