Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

With both of my instruments I have tried to develop a unique playing style, because I always figured that you don't get any recognition if you sound the same as everyone else. So I guess that squares with what you are saying, Walrus.

WJ

Kim!

Well, I'm having a problem right now with soloing. I know I'll get over the hump, but it seems like my own solo's lack identity. When I'm asked to solo, I have to come-up with something... .

I mean, I like legatto lines and vibrato, but have yet to put them into phrases that provide for the tension and release that I'm looking for. I want to mix up fast phrasing with slower phrasing but my chops are running behind my thoughts [hey that rhymes]. (BTW, I play mostly finger style and slap.) Maybe simple scales playing fast and slow will help? I'm not a big 'scale' person, maybe that's the problem. Any other suggestions...?

Are scales only for fish?

Anyway, back to the regular programming...

Walrus

Graeme

Great points, Kim and Walrus...

As a former guitar player I did realize the many possibilities of such an instrument as opposed to those given by a less 'hands-on' instrument such as a sampler, but it seems that the ability for innovation is different for each.

For guitar (and other 'live' instruments) the creative impulse must be realized through subtle technique - to the untrained ear, the difference between Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin playing their own version of the same spanish guitar riff may be miniscule - to the trained ear, it is of course huge. Things such as vibrato, attack, decay... these are instant products of the musician's creativity. However, no matter what happens the sound will still be VERY 'guitar-like', unless some sort of technology is used after the fact (such as effects boxes or post-recording studio work).

However with a sampler/sequencer the differences in musicians' output are based purely on the musician's creative range. They aren't really limited by the palette of samples - if you DO feel limited by the palette of samples you have on hand, it is simply a matter of going out and finding new ones. And often in modern electronic music the trend has been to move away from the sampler completely and approach it from a 'pure synthesis' standpoint - using wavetable or granular synthesis to create sounds from scratch.

Again, what is monotonous and restricting to one will be freeing and exciting to another - it's just a matter of perspective in my opinion. But the advances of the turntable and the sampler IMO have broken ground for many musical achievements that would not have been made otherwise.

A good example is the high-level, complex rhythmic structures of the best hip-hop MC's. Realize I'm NOT talking about Puff Daddy or Ice Cube here. MTV, as we all know, only showcases the most banal and marketable parts of a genre. If you look past the moronic posturing and limited talent of MTV rap (or MTV rock, for that matter) you will find a huge talent pool and a history of amazing advances in rhythmic structure and vocal usage. And this is only one of the many 'new arts' spawned by technology in the latter half of the 20th century. Another is the art of the turntable, which is just beginning to come to real prominence as a highly technical musical form.

I'll post a link here for anyone who's interested - if you have a slow connection you may have trouble with it but I'll post it anyway.

The two musicians in this clip are basically just 'skratching' in the first bit - albeit at a very high level. The usage of the turntable has risen to the musical level of a jazz trumpet in the past 10 years, with all the associated range of pitches, tones, rhythmic freedom and ability. Its only drawback may be that it is not polychromatic - but the advent of 'turntable bands' may be a way to get around this limitation.

As the clip picks up you may notice that the DJ on the left is using a looping pedal that isn't visible to the viewer. This looping pedal is used to loop skratches on the fly, and the DJs have the hand control to be able to manipulate the pitch of the tones on the record to actually create and loop melodies using a very small portion of the record. You never actually hear what's actually on the record, just their interpretation of it.

Think of the record playing by itself as analogous to one strumming an open 'D' power chord on a downtuned guitar.

Anyway, I think the clip below is a great example of how techology has freed musicians beyond the traditional guitar/bass/drums structure. If there is so much freedom WITHIN the traditional instrument structure, imagine the freedom OUTSIDE of it.

Anyway enough of my ramblings here's the link -

<a href="http://www.styluswars.com/TO_Element_Bar_Final.ram" target="_blank">http://www.styluswars.com/TO_Element_Bar_Final.ram</a>

and a low-bandwidth version -

<a href="http://www.styluswars.com/TO_Element_Bar_Lo.ram" target="_blank">http://www.styluswars.com/TO_Element_Bar_Lo.ram</a>

Let's continue this thread - I love discussing this stuff and it's not often I find people who are interested and intelligent enough to make it worthwile.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Graeme ]</p>

Ierrellus

Great posts!

I'm partial to Pythagoras who gave an almost religious quality to relationships between numbers. As a musician, he understood that music is the sound of active mathematics.

I cannot believe that such spurious labels as "subconscious" enhance any comprehension of either music or the creative urge that is its necessary prerequisite. The old antagonism between arts and science is an impediment to understanding the art of science or the science of art.

Mathematics is an inherent disposition within the human brain; otherwise we would have no computers or electronically synthesized sounds. Music is a universal language because it addresses that which is common to all human beings.

Creativity comes from the expression of music from persons of diverse genetic backgrounds. The personal mood or emotion of a piece of music either matches universal moods or doesn't. No music lasts that doesn't.

When I started writing free verse, I was advised by teachers to try the sonnet first. When I tried surrealistic art, I was advised to try still life first. After all, Picasso started from
realistic portraits, then went on to displacement of images.

My guitar accepts my personality onto its mathematical limitations because it and I have a common background--mathematics singing.


Ierrellus

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

WJ

I agree there are endless possibilities to discuss here. And I do think the 'methodology' that graeme has mentioned, like it or not, is the current thought process that says 'it is all good'.

But, I'd like to consider the notion of mathematics for a moment, as Irellis. points out with regard to the medium and the instrument. Perhaps we can all safely say that music and math have a direct link with regard to this form (an anthropic form) of expression. (It's funny how math and electricity have existential qualities.) Anyway, what about the elements of consciousness or conscious existence?

What I mean here is that if we conclude that our physical perception(s) and the resulting expression (the difference between what is in-there and out-there when we percieve objects) is a process in itself, then we are simply looking at a means to end. The [wanting] expression of music being mathematical in practice or in its methodology or manifestation yet, consciousness drives the desire or feeling of wanting to express a form of creativity to start.

In otherwords, an art form is simply another way to comunicate human sentience or sentient existence. It can be logical in its methodology, yet outside the domain of logic in its phenomenolgical impact to the the senses (consciousness).

Is music just another tool to express human emotional existence? The answer seems to be, yes.

Perhaps the debate would involve primacy. Which comes first in the creative cognitive process [the need to express oneself musically and artistically], emotions or reason? Or, is it all mixed together in an illogical formula of being green and red all over?

I fear I am treading in some deep waters...

Walrus

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Well, I haven't seen you play, so I'm not entirely sure what would suit your style. But why not try playing chords? (Or at least, intervals?) When you play a chord on a bass it really stands out, particularly after you've been doing single note runs. Of course, you can't really do chords on the E and A strings, it sounds too muddy, but stuff with the D and G strings sounds pretty good. You can mix chords up with single notes. You can slide them. You can do chord stops.

Just a thought.

Ierrellus

Kim,

I am not trying to be a gadfly in these discussions; but I wonder if your thread is for the purpose of identifying with other musicians or is open to philosophic reductionism of phenomena.

Ierrellus