nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/13/85)
[Crank it.] I despise acoustic instruments. I don't mean things like electric guitars, that have parts that actually phyically vibrate or resonate and are then amplified to loud volume levels. No, this flame is directed at those worthless unamplified devices that obtain all their sonic energy from the player of the instrument. There is no such thing as music without volume. Therefore volume is the essence of music and by extension music *is* volume. Music is never so alive as when played at 150+ decibels and good musicians use a dynamic range of at least 120 dBs. The role of a musician is to shape, mold, re-arrange your ears and thus determine the whole feel of sounds you hear for the rest of your life. Perhaps acoustic instruments are useful to composers alone in studios, but they are worthless in music meant to sound and be alive. They just aren't loud enough and every piece of music that uses them sounds DULL, flat, soft. Music that uses acoustic instruments doesn't have any spice, in it -- it doesn't make your ears hurt! The greatest composer ever, Lemmy of Motorhead, told me personally that "It isn't worth shit unless it makes your ears bleed!" Why should I listen to what anyone else has to say over one of the top practitioners of the craft? Acoustic instruments! I HATE THE DAMN THINGS!!!!!!!!! "Motorhead, remember me now Motorhead, alright" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP nessus@mit-eddie.ARPA
whizzo@mit-eddie.UUCP (David Hardy) (06/14/85)
I'm not sure if this article is intended in jest or not, but if not I could not let something like this go by without learning how to post a reply. Doug Alan writes >I despise acoustic instruments Well, that is his right, just as it is mine to despise Motorhead and the like, so I can't say too much about that. > There is no such thing as music without volume. Therefore volume is the > essence of music and by extension music *is* volume. Huh? Perhaps there is no such thing as music without volume, but it is certainly not the same as saying that music *is* volume. I hear a lot of VOLUME everyday at work (people laughing, construction machines being used outside, subway trains, etc....) but this is certainly NOT MUSIC. Music certainly HAS volume but it is not JUST volume. > Music is never so alive as when played at 150+ decibels...The role of a > musician is to shape, mold, re-arrange your ears... Certainly. Music at 150+ decibels (I think) is past the danger zone for ear damage and will shape them right into mush, and the "whole feel of sounds you hear for the rest of your life" will probably be heard MOSTLY by feel :-). > Perhaps acoustic instruments are useful to composers alone in studios, > but they are worthless in music meant to sound and be alive. There is nothing more 'alive' than watching and listening to a live person play an acoustic instrument. They may not be particularly loud but they have a clarity and ambience that simply cannot be reproduced by electronics. For example, I recently saw the band Renaissance in concert. They did an all acoustic show, and used a HARP for some of their songs. This may have been amplified in some way, but a sound like that just can't be gotten any other way. > Music that uses acoustic instruments doesn't have any spice ... doesn't > make your ears hurt. Fortunately the acoustic music I've heard doesn't make my ears hurt. However a good performer can put plenty of 'spice' into music even on acoustic instruments without having to hide behind a lot of electronic induced effects, amplification, distortion, etc. > The greatest composer ever, Lemmy of Motorhead.... What happened to Kate Bush??? This one almost convinced me that this article was a satire after reading prior postings from Doug Alan. Well I guess I've rambled on long enough. I am certainly not one of those people who are against electronics and amplification, etc... I like many types of music, including loud music and music with drum machines. However I felt that I must jump in here in defense of acoustics. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction .................. Can be! " Dave Hardy (whizzo@mit-eddie) ARPA: whizzo@mit-eddie.ARPA -or- haadav%mitvma@mit-multics.ARPA CSNET: haadav%mitvma.bitnet@wiscvm.csnet BITNET: haadav@mitvma
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (06/15/85)
Clearly, the bleeding hasn't stopped at your ears!
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/15/85)
> Doug Alan > I despise acoustic instruments. > > [Explanation of why acoustic intruments are worthless and volume is where > it's at deleted. See article 4450@mit-eddir.UUCP] I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/17/85)
> I'm not sure if this article is intended in jest or not, but if not I > could not let something like this go by without learning how to post > a reply. >>I despise acoustic instruments > >Well, that is his right, just as it is mine to despise Motorhead and >the like, so I can't say too much about that. >> There is no such thing as music without volume. Therefore volume is the >> essence of music and by extension music *is* volume. > Huh? Perhaps there is no such thing as music without volume, but it is > certainly not the same as saying that music *is* volume. I hear a lot of > VOLUME everyday at work (people laughing, construction machines being used > outside, subway trains, etc....) but this is certainly NOT MUSIC. Music > certainly HAS volume but it is not JUST volume. > ... > Well I guess I've rambled on long enough. I am certainly not one of those > people who are against electronics and amplification, etc... I like many > types of music, including loud music and music with drum machines. However > I felt that I must jump in here in defense of acoustics. [DAVE HARDY] I think you missed the point of Doug's article, but in so doing you proved that point. Doug was making a statement roughly equivalent to (and just as valid as) Marcel's statement that rhythm (as opposed to "volume"---good analogy, Doug!) is THE most important element in music. You were right in pointing out that the view Doug put forth on calling his view an absolute in music is preposterous. I think that was the point he was trying to make. The biggest problem with satire is that if you take it out of context someone is liable to mistake it for the real thing, since no satire can possibly be as outrageous as the real world. (Actually the more you exaggerate to make your point in satire, the more the real world rushes to surpass you!) > "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a > proposition. It isn't just contradiction .................. Can be! " Now THAT'S a signature line!!! (And very appropriate for the net.) I hope Marcel gets a kick out of reading Doug's article, and then proceeds to substitute "rhythm" and rhythmic terms to replace "volume" and volumic (?) terms and lets us know if the article has become any less satirical. Seriously. -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/17/85)
> > Doug Alan > > I despise acoustic instruments. > > > > [Explanation of why acoustic intruments are worthless and volume is where > > it's at deleted. See article 4450@mit-eddir.UUCP] > > I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! > > Marcel Simon That's a lie, Marcel! You believe that rhythm is "where it's at". Which is it, Marcel? Which of you, Doug or you, has the absolute answer? I've got to know!!!! -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/19/85)
> > > Doug Alan > > > I despise acoustic instruments. > > Marcel Simon > > I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! > That's a lie, Marcel! You believe that rhythm is "where it's at". Which is > it, Marcel? Which of you, Doug or you, has the absolute answer? I've got > to know!!!! > Rich Rosen Well, I would not want to keep you in suspense, would I? (:-) Actually, I meant that. Alan started from an axiom, to wit, "volume is the most important" and the rest of his argument follows from there. If you accept his axiom, there is no flaw in his reasoning. So he is right. And I agree with him. The key here, obviously, is to accept his axiom. Since axioms, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven, they are either all true or all false. I'd rather take the approach that they are all true. In appreciating something as subjective as music, all we can have are opinions. They can be invalid if they are not consistent with their own assumptions. Barring that, they are valid. Naturally, my assumptions will be radically different from someone else's. The result is passionate argument. I happen to like passionate argument, whether on the subject of sports, music, or whatever. Discussion/argument, however heated, is great fun. I have spent many hours in hot exchange on the relative merits of the Mingus-Dolphy vs the Parker-Gillespie vs the Coleman-Cherry bands. I love controversial postings, they get people's opinions and assumptions out. Then we really learn what makes them kick, *why* they love or hate a particular genre, piece or musician. Safe, "informative" postings are fine, but I don't believe anyone will rush out to buy an album just because of "information" someone posted on it. If that same piece moves someone to make outrageous statements, there must be something in it to awaken such passion, and I'll check it out (like Kate Bush, whose music I know little about, but whom I will definitely investigate) Controversy tends to lead to ad hominem flames, unfortunately. I don't quite understand where the "I don't agree with you, therefore you are an asshole" logic pattern comes from, but it does have inhibitory results. Who wants to get into a shouting match with someone who jumps straight to parents' marital status, total number of brain cells, etc. Much less fun. This net is an exciting forum for free exchange of opinions, mine, Rosen's, Alan's or anyone else's. It is exciting because all these opinions ultimately enrich our perspective on the whole of music, which none of us can grasp. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Now, on Alan's axiom on volume: It makes good sense. After all, music with no volume is inaudible. Inaudible music may not even exist (that is a debate for net.philosophy. If a piece is played in the desert by a deaf musician, does it exist? :-) When Alan speaks of "the louder the better," I assume he means the greater the dynamic range between loud and soft notes. Since great dynamic range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine. No wonder I agree with him! Maybe he an I can get together and form a band. Let's see, it would have no drum machines and no acoustic intruments. I bet we'd make great music! Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/19/85)
>>> > Doug Alan >>> > I despise acoustic instruments. >>> Marcel Simon >>> I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! >>That's a lie, Marcel! You believe that rhythm is "where it's at". Which is >>it, Marcel? Which of you, Doug or you, has the absolute answer? I've got >>to know!!!! --Rich Rosen > Well, I would not want to keep you in suspense, would I? (:-) > > Actually, I meant that. Alan started from an axiom, to wit, "volume is > the most important" and the rest of his argument follows from there. If you > accept his axiom, there is no flaw in his reasoning. So he is right. > And I agree with him. > > The key here, obviously, is to accept his axiom. Since axioms, by definition, > cannot be proven or disproven, they are either all true or all false. > I'd rather take the approach that they are all true. Even if they contradict each other? Volume AND rhythm (your fave) are BOTH the *single* most important element in music? Remind me not to take your logic class. :-) > In appreciating something as subjective as music, all we can have are > opinions. They can be invalid if they are not consistent with their own > assumptions. Barring that, they are valid. Naturally, my assumptions will be > radically different from someone else's. The result is passionate argument. I > happen to like passionate argument, whether on the subject of sports, > music, or whatever. Passionate argument has its virtues to be sure. But you claimed in all your articles that YOUR particular opinion (about rhythm) was not just opinion, but fact. This is where we parted company. Rhythm is most important TO YOU. Good. As long as we can agree on that. (Uh, oh, agreement. Better get the flame thrower...) > Controversy tends to lead to ad hominem flames, unfortunately. I don't quite > understand where the "I don't agree with you, therefore you are an asshole" > logic pattern comes from, but it does have inhibitory results. Who wants to > get into a shouting match with someone who jumps straight to parents' marital > status, total number of brain cells, etc. Much less fun. I didn't see any such flames as you describe (well, some, but not from my corner). Telling a person that what they've proposed is balderdash does not constitute ad hominem attacking in my book, but tell that to some people. > This net is an exciting forum for free exchange of opinions, mine, Rosen's, > Alan's or anyone else's. It is exciting because all these opinions > ultimately enrich our perspective on the whole of music, which none of us > can grasp. No, I'm not going to talk about subgroups and how they diminish the enriched perspective that Marcel talks about above. ["BUT YOU JUST DID!" -ED.] [SHHH!] > Now, on Alan's axiom on volume: > It makes good sense. After all, music with no volume is inaudible. Inaudible > music may not even exist (that is a debate for net.philosophy. If a piece > is played in the desert by a deaf musician, does it exist? :-) Music is just a label we put on a particular type of artistic endeavor, almost always meaning that that endeavor is in the realm of sound. Music that does not involve sound could thus be said not to be music but perhaps some other form of art. Even Cage's infamous 4'33" is specifically designed to make use of the sound remaining in the concert hall or wherever after you've gotten past the silence. > When Alan speaks of "the louder the better," I assume he means the greater > the dynamic range between loud and soft notes. Don't count on it. "The louder the better" is usually the fourth line in a song by Iron Maiden or Twisted Sister. > Since great dynamic > range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine. > No wonder I agree with him! Say what? Could someone versed in the foundations of propositional logic run that by me again? Marcel, he was only kidding, dammit! > Maybe he an I can get together and form a band. Let's see, it would have > no drum machines and no acoustic intruments. I bet we'd make great music! What's a non-acoustic instrument? (If you mean "electronic", you're going to run out of percussion and rhythm awful fast, Marcel, since percussion instruments other than drum machines qualify as acoustic instruments. Oh well, it was a nice project while it lasted... :-) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (06/19/85)
In article <356@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >> > > Doug Alan >> > > I despise acoustic instruments. >> > Marcel Simon >> > I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! >Now, on Alan's axiom on volume: >When Alan speaks of "the louder the better," I assume he means the greater >the dynamic range between loud and soft notes. Since great dynamic >range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine. >No wonder I agree with him! Wrongo, Marcel! I once sent mail to Alan, so I feel I know him better than a brother, and I'm *sure* that he actually means "the louder the better." None of this "greater dynamic range" and "great rhythmic diversity" nonsense. The best music is that which is so loud that every song merges into one immensely body-shattering wall of sound, each deafening moment joyously indistinguishable from the other. And since all pieces of music end up being as one by sheer force of volume, it makes it easy to break down the pop-jazz-classical-punk-experimental-etc classifications (and makes buying albums easy, since they all sound the same going through a 100,000 watt amplifier at 3000 (or whatever) decibels). Also, all such trivial notions as rhythm and harmony become meaningless. And you can't argue with that, so don't bother trying. Now that we've got that straightened out, I'm going home to listen to "The Dreaming." -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/20/85)
["Watch while the queen in one false move turns herself into a pawn"] > [Marcel Simon] In appreciating something as subjective as music, all > we can have are opinions. They can be invalid if they are not > consistent with their own assumptions. Barring that, they are valid. > Naturally, my assumptions will be radically different from someone > else's. Yeah, but just because an argument is valid, doesn't make it necessarily reasonable. If I start out with brain-damaged axioms, it's not clear that my conclusions are likely to be other than brain-damaged. If I have the axiom "Music is good if and only if it is played on kazoo" then my conclusions will probably be bogus. "Bogus?" you say. "By what criterion?" By intuitive rejection of absurd conclusions, we can reject the axioms. How do we decided on what our axioms should be? Well, our first axiom should be Occam's razor: we want as few axioms as possible. You refuse to accept this? Well foo! Then you're a close-minded cretin! :-) Then we chose axioms that lead to intuitively palatable conclusions. It seems like a real waste to me to have all sorts of axioms for every type of human expression. "Music is timbre", "Novels are plot", "Movies are character developement", etc., etc., ad nauseam! Foo! Why not one nice little axiom like "Anything is good to the degree to which is encourages intelligence, originality, and compassion"? Seems pretty nice to me! Gee, it even allows music to have drum machines in them! Shucks, but it excludes Madonna! Oh, well. Too bad... > If that same piece moves someone to make outrageous statements, there > must be something in it to awaken such passion, and I'll check it out > (like Kate Bush, whose music I know little about, but whom I will > definitely investigate) I dunno. There certainly exist people who will say outrageous things about Madonna and Duran Duran, and there's nothing in their music but calculated mass mind control.... But in any case, please do check out Kate Bush -- in particular "The Dreaming". I'd be interested in what you have to say, even if you don't like it. But it's no fair to listen to it once and then flame. It's definitely an album that has to be listened to several times before you can begin to absorb it and make any reasonable comments. And I'll check out some more jazz... (Does Kate Bush count as jazz? Dave Tayler says she does. But I don't believe him. What about Fred Frith? He's a god! But probably not jazz... Ornette Coleman is pretty good. To bad he hasn't learned about drum machines and sequencers. What a waste!) >> [Marcel Simon] Maybe he an I can get together and form a band. Let's >> see, it would have no drum machines and no acoustic intruments. I bet >> we'd make great music! > [Rich Rosen] What's a non-acoustic instrument? (If you mean > "electronic", you're going to run out of percussion and rhythm awful > fast, Marcel, since percussion instruments other than drum machines > qualify as acoustic instruments. Oh well, it was a nice project while > it lasted... :-) Hey, Rich, you forgot that Marcel allows those electronic drums that you hit with drum sticks and which then make funky synthesized drum sounds. We could use one of those. Or we could just set up some percussion sounds on our Fairlight. We'd have to rip out all the niffty sequencing circuitry, but that's okay. Nothing else really matters, just as long as it's CRANKED! "Virile young men run down the street in havoc singing 'I wish to build, I penetrate, I penetrate'" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/21/85)
> Volume AND rhythm (your fave) are BOTH > the *single* most important element in music? Remind me not to take your > logic class. :-) I never said rhythm is the single most important element in music. I did say that rhythm is at the core of successful music. I extend slightly the dictionary definition of rhythm. I take rhythm to be that quality of music that differentiates the note I play today from the same note someone else played yesterday. We are talking about the same note so improvisation is not the issue here. Rather, whatever inflections that differentiate Isaac Stern from Yo-Yo Ma or Vladimir Horowitz from Gerald Eskenazy, *while they are playing the same piece*. In that sense, any note played by on a non electronic instrument will have rhythmic qualities. Since there are touch sensitive synthesizers around, notes played on them will have rhythmic qualities. In fact, taken in the strictest possible way, an arrhythmic piece would consist of a single note, played by some electronic instrument, and held continuously, sort of like the 40 second end of the Beatles' "Day in the Life." The dictionary defines rhythm as the pattern made by groups of notes so any multitone or multi instrument piece would have rhythmic qualities. What someone chooses to fix upon as the single most important element in a given piece is a matter of opinion. I make the argument that a successful piece, whatever the criterion for success, will *also* be found to be rhythmically successful. Conversely, I also believe that an unsuccessful piece, however unsuccessful is defined (a matter of opinion) will *also* be rhythmically unsuccessful. WHy is that? Well, rhythm marks the passage of Time. This can happen in some repeated manner, giving us a meter or time signature, or it may not. Rhythmic success keeps us interested in what is coming next. Someone posted an article noting that the disco beat, although irresistible, is intellectually unchallenging. Quite true. It's sort of like a pitcher's fastball. Speed (the beat) is important, but the excellence of a fastball pitcher is not speed (the beat) alone but movement. Does the fastball rise or dip, tail away or into the batter? Likewise, Time cannot pass in flat fashion. It must keep moving. The degree to which it moves, essentially, is a measure of rhythmic success. Jazz is a discipline where the above conditions are most easily heard. But others meet it as well: look at the highly personal breath dynamics of Japanese shakuhachi music; the abrupt variations of internote spaces in Japanese koto music. From another angle, King Crimson's "Thela Hun Ginjeet" is built on he basic disco beat; but Levin and Bruford dance around it, leaning hard on off beats, placing accents at odd places, and generally creating the challenge to and support for the guitar acrobatics happening above them. Rereading the above, I realize all of this is really intangible and hard to pin down. I hope it makes sense to others. > > Passionate argument has its virtues to be sure. But you claimed in all your > articles that YOUR particular opinion (about rhythm) was not just opinion, > but fact. This is where we parted company. Rhythm is most important TO YOU. > Good. As long as we can agree on that. (Uh, oh, agreement. Better get > the flame thrower...) > I think everything I said above is observable by others. I'd be curious to hear opinions on how other people hear Time go by in a piece. > Music is just a label we put on a particular type of artistic endeavor, > almost always meaning that that endeavor is in the realm of sound. Music > that does not involve sound could thus be said not to be music but perhaps > some other form of art. Even Cage's infamous 4'33" is specifically designed > to make use of the sound remaining in the concert hall or wherever after > you've gotten past the silence. > No disagreement here (Oh my God, Rosen and I just agreed. Mark this day in history :-) Some wise person once said something about music being the organization of noise. > > Since great dynamic > > range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine. > > No wonder I agree with him! > > Say what? Could someone versed in the foundations of propositional logic run > that by me again? Marcel, he was only kidding, dammit! I think the net needs some indicator of the chuckle, to mean "I see the game but I am going along with it", which was my intent here. How about ~:~ ? > What's a non-acoustic instrument? (If you mean "electronic", you're going > to run out of percussion and rhythm awful fast, Marcel, since percussion > instruments other than drum machines qualify as acoustic instruments. Oh > well, it was a nice project while it lasted... :-) Why don't I let Alan define non-acoustic intruments? That's his area (~:~) > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Marcel Simon
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (06/21/85)
I can now understand how whichever of you posted this "Volume" thing originally got that way...don't pummel each other into oblivion, blame those blasted broadcasters who attempt to get every cycle of every audio waveform between 99.995 and 100.000 % modulation... Which one of you has an Audimax, Volumax, and Dorrough DAP tri-band compressor in your listening room? dya
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/24/85)
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster, somewhere out there) writes: > The best music is that which is so loud that every song merges into one > immensely body-shattering wall of sound, each deafening moment joyously > indistinguishable from the other. ... Now that we've got that straightened > out, I'm going home to listen to "The Dreaming." Just be sure to faithfully follow the directions on the record sleeve, VO... -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Erny vfgf qba'g hfr Xbqnpuebzr."
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/25/85)
["I don't want work -- just want to bang on my drum all day!"] > From: etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) > Will the REAL Doug Alan please stand up? I'm the real one, and if any other message apparently from me comments on Nate Stelton's message, will someone please tell me, because these forgeries screw up our mailer. > From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) > I never said rhythm is the single most important element in music. > I did say that rhythm is at the core of successful music. Marcel, you can't pull the cashmere over my eyes. You said that "music *is* rhythm". > What someone chooses to fix upon as the single most important element > in a given piece is a matter of opinion. I make the argument that a > successful piece, whatever the criterion for success, will *also* be > found to be rhythmically successful. Conversely, I also believe that > an unsuccessful piece, however unsuccessful is defined (a matter of > opinion) will *also* be rhythmically unsuccessful. I don't accept this Marcel. If this were true then we could take any successful piece of music and replace all the instruments, drums, etc., by new instruments, such that the rhythmic qualities are the same, but also such that each instrument can only play at one pitch, and all the instruments play at that same one pitch, and get a new piece of music which is also successful. Now, we might have some trouble distinguishing between the instruments in this case, so we might have to allow the instruments to have a very slight degree of freedom in pitch, just so that they can use the slight pitch differences to define rhythms and to distinguish instruments. In any case, using this process I think you will be able to turn a lot a very succussful music into a lot of unsuccessful noise, so your assertion seems clearly false. > WHy is that? Well, rhythm marks the passage of Time. I'd say it's more like time marks the passage of rhythm. > Rhythmic success keeps us interested in what is coming next. So does melodic, harmonic, and contrapunctal success. > Likewise, Time cannot pass in flat fashion. It must keep moving. The > degree to which it moves, essentially, is a measure of rhythmic > success. Marcel, this is just mumbo jumbo! Time passes fine by itself, without rhythm or anything. And who says that the degree to which it moves is a measure of rhythmic success? I totally disagree. I think that successful rhythm has nothing to do with the degree to which time moves, whatever that means. I have found that some very successful rhythms are very static. For example, when I saw Laurie Anderson live last year, at the very beginning of the concert, before anyone came on stage, a drum machine started up along with an animated film loop. The drum machine played, repeating its short little rhythm pattern over and over again, and it was perfectly synched to the film. This continued for five minutes without any change. Now this may sound boring, but it wasn't in the slightest. The beat was strange and captivating. It was hypnotic, and made it seem almost as if time were stopped (to use your vague terminology, Marcel) or running in a loop, for those five minutes. It was a very interesting (and musically successful) experience! > Rereading the above, I realize all of this is really intangible and hard > to pin down. I hope it makes sense to others. Not really. Most probably because it is untrue. In any case, Marcel, even if I accepted your statements, how would you then go about "proving" that drum machines are worthless? You've already indicated that all instruments provide rhythm. Therefore, in music with a drum machine, the drum machine is only providing some of the rhythm, and there is still an infinite amount of possible rhythmic variation that the other instruments can provide. I've, in previous postings, mentioned several methods that can and have been used to create successful music using drum machines. You never responded to any of those claims, though, Marcel. In a sense, you can philosophize from first principals, all you want to, to "prove" that music with drum machines can't possibly be successful, but proof by example is still one of the most accepted forms of proof. There exists highly successful music that uses drum machines, therefore drum machines can be used in successful music. QED. In my opinion, rhythm is far from the most important element in music. All music may have rhythm, but so what? Does that make rhythm most important? No. All novels have a plot. But is the plot the most important element in all novels? No. When asking ourselves such questions as what is the most important element in music, we might consider, which change would have the most prominent effect on a piece of music. Would changing the rhythm of a piece of music or changing the pitches in its melody or changing the harmonies change the piece of music the most? Would changing the plot or the character development in a novel change the novel more? I think the answer will be different for different pieces of music and for different novels. In my opinion, it is counterpoint that is the single most important part of any piece of music. And I don't mean just melodic counterpoint, but rhythmic counterpoint too. What I really mean is that it is not any single component of a piece of music that is most important, but that the *relationship* between the components is THE single most important aspect of music. Now we can see that drum machines have some very interesting and important uses in music. One method of creating an interesting relationship in music is to have a fairly static drum machine beat, and have the rhythms of the other instruments not fully conform to this rhythm, but weave in and out of it. It's not the drum machine rhythm here that is important, but the relationship between the other rhythms and the static rhythm. In a sense, there is now a rather complicated implied rhythm in the music that is defined by the difference between the static rhythm and the flowing rhythms. Two clashing static rhythms can create a complex relationship between the two that creates a very complicated implied rhythm. And drum machine progressions can create an effect where one static rhythm flows into another static rhythm, for a rather interesting perceptual effect, where perhaps time seems to move in lumps. Time is frozen for a little while and then suddenly jumps forward, only to be frozen for a little while again, etc. The only rule is There are no rules Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)