NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/emusicl/1661

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.5 KB | 73 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NETCOM.COM!METLAY
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:17:59 PST
Sender:       Electronic Music Discussion List <[e-mail]>
From:         metlay <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: PHIL COMP
Comments: To: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>; from "Mark Simon"
              at Dec 21, 92 9:10 am
Lines: 58

>I would like to side up with Robert Depin as far as the paper-and-pencil vs. se
>quencer debate is concerned. We would expect as a matter of course that a novel
>ist or a poet should be able to transfer his/her thoughts fluently into written
> language. Why shouldn't a composer be expected to be fluent with the basic ele
>ments of his/her written language? It's just a basic tool of the trade.

Baf! Words on paper are the meat and potatoes of the poet and the
novelist. Putting their thoughts to paper IS WHAT THEY DO. Putting
thoughts to paper is NOT what a musician does, a musician makes MUSIC.
Back in the days before sequencers and recording media, the only way
to pass on music was in written representation. This does not make
written notation vital, central, or irreplaceable. I haven't used it
in years, and I have hours of music on tape despite the fact. I work
with people who use it extensively and happily, and THEY have hours
of music on tape as well. It's a basic tool of the trade, in the way
a four-function calculator is a basic tool of the scientist. It doesn't
go deep enough by far.



> When I
>get a musical idea I can't be bothered with pushing a lot of buttons on a machi
>ne. I've lost the idea by that time. But I can jot the idea on paper in two win
>ks and there it is for all time. It's so much more direct. I generally will wri
>te out the basic structure for the whole piece (melody, bass line, chords, some
> counterpoint here and there) and then go to the sequencer, where I invariably
>come up with many other little details which flesh out the composition and make
> it interesting.

You're a traditional composer, and you work with traditional methods. If
notation is quicker for you, then USE it. But I find it much faster to fire
up a sequencer and fly in an idea than to grab a sheet of notation paper and
start scribbling.

>      I have very little interest in sound for its own sake. The most important
> thing in music is structure.

For YOU, the most important thing is structure. For ME, timbre often IS
structure. Can we agree to disagree on this? From the rest of your letter,
it seems to me that you'd be just as happy having your music performed
by a band of real musicians, and you regard the sonic possibilities of
synthesizers as being icing on the proverbial cake. There is nothing
wrong with this, but it's not how I work.

>     Mike Metlay shouldn't fret too hard about a stuffed shirt like Karl Haas
>not liking electronic music. Ever listen to one of his radio shows?

Many times. I find him enlightening, amusing, and occasionally even
worthwhile. I just don't like his opinions on electronic music. That's
okay; I don't like yours either. |->


--
mike metlay                | Hey-YEH!
atomic city                | Walkin' in the Valley of Decision--
p. o. box 81175            | Hey-YEH!
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675   | Reap all the Wages of Sin!
[e-mail]          |                           ('vouf, after d.dax)