How far do you stray from your "Style"

[vurt]

I think actually the original post in the thread deals in <comfort zone> rather than markings of personal style.
So I can't help but be myself - and would argue in the affirmative that the more technique you bring to it the more personality is possible - but I get into a sameness after several tracks and make a decision to shock myself into something different, typically.

i kind of agree, if im reading you correct.

we are ourselves, whatever we do. even the sounds and style may differ, but our personality is inherent in our aims...

as evidence i provide
this months café contest track.
me doing rock type stuff...
http://www.viablehybrid.com/vurt/testtu ... ngbowl.mp3

those who know my usual stuff can probably tell this is a little outside a comfort zone, but the overall feel is quite similar to what people might call "my sound".

and i can definitely hear for example, you jan, in your tracks, even though as you say, occasionally you switch gears, you cant (and nor should you) lose the essence of "you".


(yes im high)[go easy on me]

[Aloysius]

Two miles.

[jancivil]

I think actually the original post in the thread deals in <comfort zone> rather than markings of personal style.
So I can't help but be myself - and would argue in the affirmative that the more technique you bring to it the more personality is possible - but I get into a sameness after several tracks and make a decision to shock myself into something different, typically.

i kind of agree, if im reading you correct.

we are ourselves, whatever we do. even the sounds and style may differ, but our personality is inherent in our aims...

as evidence i provide
this months café contest track.
me doing rock type stuff...

Def vurt sound. Although not what you sounded like 10 yrs ago afair.

[vurt]

no, that's from this months café contest.
ive not really done any "rock" stuff since my teenage band years
10 years ago i was drones and glitch, noise for the sake of noise. i was a very angry man inside. life wasn't great.

[vurt]

self expression, that's what i was trying to say!

[donkey tugger]

One likes to dip ones toes in various aspects of the pop idiom. Just looking at things I've done in the last couple of years, I've incorporated bits of;

Indie, acoustic jaaath, folk, piano ballads, funk, disco house, synthpop, metal, country , p**g r**K, shoegaze, soul...and so on

You could always tell it's me though, firstly usually by the sloppy guitar playing, and certainly as soon as I open my gob and start wheezing.

[jancivil]

no, that's from this months café contest.

Yes, I heard it.

[vurt]

ah i see, you mean my overall sound was different then.
again i would agree, due to the reasons above. what i was expressing was a different me. different ego at the controls.

[tapper mike]

I think actually the original post in the thread deals in <comfort zone> rather than markings of personal style.
So I can't help but be myself - and would argue in the affirmative that the more technique you bring to it the more personality is possible - but I get into a sameness after several tracks and make a decision to shock myself into something different, typically.

Yes comfort zone with regards to technique but it's also about... Character development. I'll elaborate when time allows.

[tapper mike]

Okay...

Your music, my music very little of it is "Original" regardless of what we tell ourselves. You become yourself musically as you tap into the music 1. you love and 2 you can do. I love Bruce Springsteen but whenever I try to play his songs or play/write in his style it comes out campy and cheesy. So you can love/identify with an artist all you want but even if you dedicate yourself to their playing style you aren't going to sound exactly like them.

That doesn't mean you don't gain something in the process. In fact the process of emulation is part of how we become "us" If you dig past the notes and order and tempo there are intricacies of technique that have a lasting impact on your performance.

But then there is the separator of "actor" and "character" Many people will lifelessly go through a performance and be able to carry a tune sufficient to make it palatable for an audience. There are the few who strive for more and struggle more to get into the "Character" Schon once said that he worked hard to emulate Santana and could pull off a good imitation playing Santana "Esque" material. Later he said he didn't need the Latin Rock to just "Tap into his inner Santana.



What great SRV posers get that Hitler doesn't is it's embracing the SRV character not just with the notes and the commitment but also with the mentality they are great character actors who play in the mindset not just knowing the licks but living them.

Not that I want to be SRV but he fully embraced the artists he loved. And as Clapton once said.... I loved SRV's playing once he played like SRV but he could have never done that if he didn't embrace those that he emulated.

[mevla]

I think the whole thrust of saying 'music theory' like that is mistaken. If you notice that 12 bar blues has 12 bars and does I - IV - I - V, IV, I (E - A - E - B, A, E), or whatever variant you're doing, you're engaging the mechanics of the convention, which is what most music theory is.

What is then to say in the exact same manner about the African Zulu Drum Music ?

It seems as if you are saying that no-one can create music that does not fit necessarily into a well-educated, well-learned, frame, even instinctively, nothwhitstanding any popularity that could be involved.

I said nothing that even remotely resembles that. I think it seems that way to you because *

What is then to say about any music? Do you think there is no consistent methodology in its practice?
The chords in a 12 bar blues are conventional. *: You're pushing your disposition onto the discussion, as though you have a truth, one from which a preconceived value judgment follows.

What I get now is that being able to sort it out on paper or name the chords - let's keep going, to analyze the African rhythmic structure, to know what the tunings Slendro and Pelog are or to be able to tell Java from Bali in Gamelan traditions, to know anything about practice - is something to be suspicious of in favor of naivety or purity. I mean you are ascribing <fitting into the well-educated frame> as a pejorative or to dismiss. This is only a reiteration of your disposition, which I interrogated.

I didn't fit anything into anything other than put Roman numerals to the conventional chords in 12 bar blues. There is one reason for that, because it's the same relationship no matter the key. <But you play better blues not being burdened with all that> can look like a truth, but that will be some fallacy. There is no difference between knowing that just from experience and knowing how to write it. If you know it, and you know it because it consistently works in the way it does, that's music theory. I have already said that this conception of 'music theory' is a mistake. AGAIN: if you know E goes to A, back to E, then does a turnaround B A E, that's music theory. If you are confused when the basic chord is now G, you're not very good at it. Hence knowing it's the relationships, eg., I - IV - I; V, IV, I. You can be illiterate and have that concept sussed.

Do you actually believe 'African Zulu Drum' practice is a bunch of people acting instinctively? Might it not be that there is a certain way things are always done? A convention, a practice where everyone in the drum choir has their role, and with a way to convey to the new members what that is?

No, I think you're showing the problems of ignorance, not some problem inherent in understanding of a music on a technical basis.


You're deliberately ascribing things to me that aren't there in my statements. I said something about popularity, where? 12 bar blues is so esoteric, yeah? I'm done, there is no exchange when you twist what I say.

(Sorry for quoting at length, I rarely do that)

The word that was used after the question is SEEMS.

Does it sound like ascribing ?

Not to mention a good tendency in characterizing the person you are exchanging with as an ignorant.

If so, please relax a bit.

Hey, here's my latest piece that's quite relaxing. Improv done without any thinking about what should go after A or B or whatever.

https://soundcloud.com/nominal6/orbital

[foosnark]

I'm starting to think that I should concentrate on what I'm best at rather than trying to rebuild myself from scratch. I still can cover a lot of ground with what I have already but there is always something "out there" I want to explore.

I have always been into diverse types of music, and a lot of non-musical interests and influences, and the music I made reflected that. Sometimes I made ambient stuff, sometimes I reached for powernoise, sometimes a jazz influence came through, sometimes it was chiptunes, influences from Nordic folk music and Japanese taiko and African percussion and so on.

In hindsight it was a mess. But to develop that hindsight, I had to really listen to what I was doing and recognize that some of it was a lot better to listen to than the rest... and choose to focus on that and refine it.

Part of it is a recognition that I can't do everything. Dabbling in everything means being good at nothing. I love reading science fiction but I suck as an author. I tried for a bit to do some straightforward techno stuff and it was unlistenable. I like the hammered dulcimer but I'm not going to buy one and dedicate the time to getting good with it. I enjoyed being a taiko drummer, but it took too many hours per week away from everything else -- and improvement would have meant devoting more time to endurance training and dance-related skills.

Today, though I still like listening to all kinds of genres and instruments, I specialize in "uneasy listening" ambient stuff -- horror movie scores that don't have movies. It's the area where I feel like I really found my voice and my calling. I can do rhythmic-led, jazz-influenced stuff and come out sounding pretty unique, but by my own judgement it's not very good, so why do it?

[jancivil]

I think the whole thrust of saying 'music theory' like that is mistaken. If you notice that 12 bar blues has 12 bars and does I - IV - I - V, IV, I (E - A - E - B, A, E), or whatever variant you're doing, you're engaging the mechanics of the convention, which is what most music theory is.

What is then to say in the exact same manner about the African Zulu Drum Music ?

It seems as if you are saying that no-one can create music that does not fit necessarily into a well-educated, well-learned, frame, even instinctively, nothwhitstanding any popularity that could be involved.

I said nothing that even remotely resembles that. I think it seems that way to you because *

What is then to say about any music? Do you think there is no consistent methodology in its practice?
The chords in a 12 bar blues are conventional. *: You're pushing your disposition onto the discussion, as though you have a truth, one from which a preconceived value judgment follows.

What I get now is that being able to sort it out on paper or name the chords - let's keep going, to analyze the African rhythmic structure, to know what the tunings Slendro and Pelog are or to be able to tell Java from Bali in Gamelan traditions, to know anything about practice - is something to be suspicious of in favor of naivety or purity. I mean you are ascribing <fitting into the well-educated frame> as a pejorative or to dismiss. This is only a reiteration of your disposition, which I interrogated.

I didn't fit anything into anything other than put Roman numerals to the conventional chords in 12 bar blues. There is one reason for that, because it's the same relationship no matter the key. <But you play better blues not being burdened with all that> can look like a truth, but that will be some fallacy. There is no difference between knowing that just from experience and knowing how to write it. If you know it, and you know it because it consistently works in the way it does, that's music theory. I have already said that this conception of 'music theory' is a mistake. AGAIN: if you know E goes to A, back to E, then does a turnaround B A E, that's music theory. If you are confused when the basic chord is now G, you're not very good at it. Hence knowing it's the relationships, eg., I - IV - I; V, IV, I. You can be illiterate and have that concept sussed.

Do you actually believe 'African Zulu Drum' practice is a bunch of people acting instinctively? Might it not be that there is a certain way things are always done? A convention, a practice where everyone in the drum choir has their role, and with a way to convey to the new members what that is?

No, I think you're showing the problems of ignorance, not some problem inherent in understanding of a music on a technical basis.


You're deliberately ascribing things to me that aren't there in my statements. I said something about popularity, where? 12 bar blues is so esoteric, yeah? I'm done, there is no exchange when you twist what I say.

(Sorry for quoting at length, I rarely do that)

The word that was used after the question is SEEMS.

Does it sound like ascribing ?

Not to mention a good tendency in characterizing the person you are exchanging with as an ignorant.

To take your tack: does saying ignorance once sound like a 'good tendency in characterizing a person'?
I would say that your assessment of the situation looks like ignorance. Can you address points? Do you actually believe that African drummers are just doing things "instinctively" rather than learning how it's done and fitting into a role in the drum choir? See, I've studied it. Yes, that means an educated sort of person went up in there and transcribed it and reproduced it on paper. And published. it does not mean that, eg., a 7 + 5 = 12 syncopation crossed against 3 x 4 = 12 isn't the case; it does not mean that the specific roles in the 'arrangement' isn't the case. I would say that "African" as purely instinctive is dismissive. And cartoonish.

So I'm making the argument that your view of music theory is a mistake. I think it's a good argument. I see that on the other hand you don't so much as have one for your disposition; and my assessment of that is in earnest. It's not personal, it's an argument against the way you are framing it and trying to make knowing look suspect.

Yes, to take my words and make them into that looks like twisting (and like "ascribing").
So are you uncomfortable with my characterization of what you have done as what you have done? "Seems like" changes nothing about that. It can't have "seemed" like that sticking to just reading it. It isn't there.

Also, telling a person of their emotional state in trying to make what I noticed about your remarks suspicious is more of the same skewing. I can actually think 'you twist what I say' and be fairly anodyne.

My interest in your "without any thinking" has waned. "improv" - I'm steeped in improv. Your remarks only reinforce my impression that your notion, knowing things means you're less free, is a fundamental mistake.