rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/15/85)
> I despise drum machines. > I don't mean drum synthesizers, these hexagonal contraptions that otherwise > look like regular drum kits, and more important, are played by real live > humans. I don't mean to flame electronic instruments in general either. > No, this flame is directed at these little boxes, into which some guru > programs a 6/8, say, and which continue to beat that 6/8 ad infinitum, > ad nauseam or until the power is mercifully cut off. > What is their purpose, beyond saving in recording session costs, > and squeezing life from the recorded product? > The greatest drummers, folks like Max Roach, Elvin Jones, > Tony Williams, Roy Haynes, are constantly varying their patterns, > shading ahead of the beat to push the melody, or laying back a > fraction in a relaxed swing. The role of the drummer is to > shape, mold, re-arrange Time and thereby determine the whole > feel of the music. ... Every piece of recorded > music I have heard that uses them sounds DULL, flat, uninspiring... > like something recorded by a machine, which in a very key sense, > it is. I HATE THE DAMN THINGS!!!!!!!!!! [Marcel Simon] There are drum machines and there are drum machines. The ones that come attached to home organs or the ones used by many club date bands that basically have a tempo control and a switch with positions labelled "FOXTROT", "SWING", "SOFT ROCK", "HARDCORE" (really soft rock with the tempo on MAX :-) are abysmal not only in rhythm but also in timbre. Above these are varying degrees of programmable machines, ranging in sound quality from mediocre to precise digital reproductions, and ranging in programmability from mediocre to elaborate. Now that I've gotten the technical garbage out of the way, let me say that I agree in principle that the drum machines are generally pretty silly in their usage. However: 1) Recognize that often the drum patterns recorded specifically for specific songs are often keyed in by studio drummers themselves at the studio. In effect, doing this frees them to let the machine roll on while they do other things of a more esoteric nature. Tony Levin (at Fripp's suggestion) was going to program a DrumTrax for the last King Crimson tour, because Bruford was less interested in "timekeeping" than he was in experimenting adventures in percussion, and the band felt they needed the support. 2) They are fantastic tools for composers working on their own. Though the machine I have is a piece of crap (the old Dr. Rhythm), I accompany that sound when I record with various sundry other percussion that I play directly (acoustic and electronic). 3) I wouldn't knock them wholeheartedly. Even the cheap annoying rhythm boxes with "FOXTROT-SAMBA-WALTZ" switches have been used in very interesting ways by people like Brian Eno (e.g., "Great Pretender" on "Taking Tiger Mountain", and "In Dark Trees", "Sombre Reptiles" etc. from "Another Green World"). Groups like Our Daughter's Wedding (before they got swallowed up) made great use of such machinery, live and on record ("Lawnchairs"), with wild electric percussionist Layne Rico flailing away at Synare drums whilst the other machines backed him up. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/17/85)
> > I despise drum machines. > -- > "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" > "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr It would seem the problem isn't the machines, but the players. Keyboard magazine has been running articles by Billy Cobham on drum machine use for keyboard musicians. -Ron
mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) (05/17/85)
> 3) I wouldn't knock them wholeheartedly. Even the cheap annoying rhythm > boxes with "FOXTROT-SAMBA-WALTZ" switches have been used in very > interesting ways by people like Brian Eno (e.g., "Great Pretender" > on "Taking Tiger Mountain", and "In Dark Trees", "Sombre Reptiles" > etc. from "Another Green World"). Groups like Our Daughter's Wedding > (before they got swallowed up) made great use of such machinery, live > and on record ("Lawnchairs"), with wild electric percussionist Layne > Rico flailing away at Synare drums whilst the other machines backed him > up. > -- > "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" > "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Even main-stream, hard rock groups are begining to make use of them. Listen to "Hot for Teacher" by Van Halen. That a drum synth is being use is obvious. When listening to the piece, I get the impression that Van Halen use the drum synth deliberately for its own distinctive sound. I heard a while back that one of the members of Steely Dan (before break up) was working on a drum synth with a great deal of expression. It could handle sliding off time, and a variety of other drum techniques. It was also a sampling machine which would grap a rythm and continue it until the next was entered (dynamically). Has anyone heard of this? Any updates on development or production? -- Mark J. Norton {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn mjn@sunspot
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/20/85)
> Rich Rosen: > > 2) They are fantastic tools for composers working on their own. Though the > machine I have is a piece of crap (the old Dr. Rhythm), I accompany > that sound when I record with various sundry other percussion that I > play directly (acoustic and electronic). > Agreed. The drum machine in this context is similar to the metronomes used by classical composers and practicing virtuosos. > 1) Recognize that often the drum patterns recorded specifically for specific > songs are often keyed in by studio drummers themselves at the studio. > In effect, doing this frees them to let the machine roll on while they > do other things of a more esoteric nature. Tony Levin (at Fripp's > suggestion) was going to program a DrumTrax for the last King Crimson > tour, because Bruford was less interested in "timekeeping" than he was > in experimenting adventures in percussion, and the band felt they > needed the support. > 3) I wouldn't knock them wholeheartedly. Even the cheap annoying rhythm > boxes with "FOXTROT-SAMBA-WALTZ" switches have been used in very > interesting ways by people like Brian Eno (e.g., "Great Pretender" > on "Taking Tiger Mountain", and "In Dark Trees", "Sombre Reptiles" > etc. from "Another Green World"). Groups like Our Daughter's Wedding > (before they got swallowed up) made great use of such machinery, live > and on record ("Lawnchairs"), with wild electric percussionist Layne > Rico flailing away at Synare drums whilst the other machines backed him > up. My flame was directed at the use of the contraptions in live performance or in studios when the final take is being recorded. I don't have any problem with using them in the intermediary stages of composition (it does get expensive to bring a drummer over to your house to hash out some ideas :-) I don't think the flame is diminished (OK, I'll take back the "why do they exist part) by Eno's creative use of them (I did not know that he used them on ANOTHER GREEN WORLD) I am glad you used the Crimson example. Fripp has very clear and precise ideas on music; they can be summarized in one word: discipline, or to quote him, "the right to be boring." Listening to his work, both solo and with the League of Gentlemen, it seems to me that he strives for rhythmic statism, and carefully contained melodic intensity. This works well within his tone, which is one of controlled rage (to these ears.) Quite valid, but in the end, dull. I like the LOG album very much, but it just got... familiar. Once the general idea is assimilated, there is not much else to grab the listener. When hearing Miles Davis with Tony Williams, I may have gotten the direction Miles is taking the tune in, but much joy is to be found in hearing a Williams kick in the pants jolt Davis out of an idea that has run out of steam. To stay with the example of Crimson, I find much more *repeated* pleasure in listening to tunes like "Matte Kudasai", "Indiscipline", "Thela Hun Ginjeet", "The Sheltering Sky", and "Satori In Tan giers." It is interesting that in all these cases, Buford prevailed on Fripp to "let his hair down" and loosen up. Also interesting is that the majority of these moments occur on the first album of this edition of Crimson, when the creative tensions between Buford and Fripp were constructive, rather than destructive. In short, I feel your Crimson example confirms my theory, that drum machines are confining for a drummer intent on rhythmic explaration, and tend to be useful *in performance* only to rhythmically limited musicians Marcel Simon
elf@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (05/21/85)
> > Rich Rosen: > > > > 2) They are fantastic tools for composers working on their own. Though the > > machine I have is a piece of crap (the old Dr. Rhythm), I accompany > > that sound when I record with various sundry other percussion that I > > play directly (acoustic and electronic). > > > Agreed. The drum machine in this context is similar to the metronomes used > by classical composers and practicing virtuosos. > > > Marcel Simon Interesting that metronomes should be mentioned. In one of my favourite albums, "Neu! 1975" by Neu, you can hear a metronome clicking away through most of the album. Very effective in that context, but I don't think it'll become the new (neu?) thing in drumming technique. Eugene Fiume.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/22/85)
| > > I despise drum machines. | > -- | > "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" | > "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr | | It would seem the problem isn't the machines, but the players. Keyboard | magazine has been running articles by Billy Cobham on drum machine use | for keyboard musicians. | | -Ron I would appreciate in future not being so blatantly misquoted. The line "I despise drum machines" came from an article I was responding to, not from my article. I happen to own a few electronic drum machines of varying levels of usefulness, and happen to like them in certain situations. Now, as I DID say in that article, in the studio it is often drummers who program the machines, so it's good to see someone of Cobham's level of dexterity writing instructive (are they? any comments?) articles on the subject. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/22/85)
> > 2) They are fantastic tools for composers working on their own. Though the > > machine I have is a piece of crap (the old Dr. Rhythm), I accompany > > that sound when I record with various sundry other percussion that I > > play directly (acoustic and electronic). [ROSEN] > > > Agreed. The drum machine in this context is similar to the metronomes used > by classical composers and practicing virtuosos. [MARCEL SIMON] That's not what I said. They serve as sound sources in such situations, not just rhythm keeping devices. > > 1) Recognize that often the drum patterns recorded specifically for specific > > songs are often keyed in by studio drummers themselves at the studio. > > In effect, doing this frees them to let the machine roll on while they > > do other things of a more esoteric nature. Tony Levin (at Fripp's > > suggestion) was going to program a DrumTrax for the last King Crimson > > tour, because Bruford was less interested in "timekeeping" than he was > > in experimenting adventures in percussion, and the band felt they > > needed the support. > > 3) I wouldn't knock them wholeheartedly. Even the cheap annoying rhythm > > boxes with "FOXTROT-SAMBA-WALTZ" switches have been used in very > > interesting ways by people like Brian Eno (e.g., "Great Pretender" > > on "Taking Tiger Mountain", and "In Dark Trees", "Sombre Reptiles" > > etc. from "Another Green World"). Groups like Our Daughter's Wedding > > (before they got swallowed up) made great use of such machinery, live > > and on record ("Lawnchairs"), with wild electric percussionist Layne > > Rico flailing away at Synare drums whilst the other machines backed him > > up. > My flame was directed at the use of the contraptions in live performance > or in studios when the final take is being recorded. I don't have any problem > with using them in the intermediary stages of composition (it does get > expensive to bring a drummer over to your house to hash out some ideas :-) > I don't think the flame is diminished (OK, I'll take back the "why do they > exist part) by Eno's creative use of them (I did not know that he used them > on ANOTHER GREEN WORLD) That is not a Peruvian Indian ensemble on "Sombre Reptiles" or "In Dark Trees". Sure sounds like it could have been, though. Or maybe a Martian one... > I am glad you used the Crimson example. Fripp has very clear and precise > ideas on music; they can be summarized in one word: discipline, or to > quote him, "the right to be boring." Listening to his work, both solo > and with the League of Gentlemen, it seems to me that he strives for > rhythmic statism, and carefully contained melodic intensity. This works > well within his tone, which is one of controlled rage (to these ears.) > Quite valid, but in the end, dull. I like the LOG album very much, > but it just got... familiar. Once the general idea is assimilated, > there is not much else to grab the listener. > To stay with the example of Crimson, I find much more *repeated* > pleasure in listening to tunes like "Matte Kudasai", "Indiscipline", > "Thela Hun Ginjeet", "The Sheltering Sky", and "Satori In Tan giers." > It is interesting that in all these cases, Buford prevailed on Fripp > to "let his hair down" and loosen up. Also interesting is that > the majority of these moments occur on the first album of this > edition of Crimson, when the creative tensions between Buford and Fripp > were constructive, rather than destructive. On "Sheltering Sky", Bruford basically tapped out on a log drum. Fripp and Bruford's musical differences, while very important to King Crimson Mark ???'s sound, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The point is that the drum machines can be and are valid tools of expression and utility. > In short, I feel your Crimson example confirms my theory, that > drum machines are confining for a drummer intent on rhythmic explaration, > and tend to be useful *in performance* only to rhythmically limited > musicians I feel my Crimson example confirms MY theory. I hope you realize that you sound like the grumpy old fogey who condemned synthesizers twenty years ago, or the organ years before that (How dare they imitate the sounds of instruments with pipes? Unconscionable!). Of course there will always be bozos who use them like toys, but they serve a useful expressive purpose. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/23/85)
> On "Sheltering Sky", Bruford basically tapped out on a log drum. ... > drum machines can be and are valid tools of expression and utility. > The source of rhythm is unimportant. The point is that his tapping (incidently, it was a conga with the skin slightly loosened) waxed and waned with the dynamics of the tune, and with Bruford's own contribution to the composition, something a drum machine could not have done. Maybe those things are useful to composers alone in studios, but they are worthless in music meant to sound and be alive. > [You] sound like the grumpy old fogey who condemned synthesizers twenty years ago, > or the organ years before that (How dare they imitate the sounds of instruments > with pipes? Unconscionable!). Of course there will always be bozos who use > them like toys, but they serve a useful expressive purpose. Using a pipe organ as a toy sounds remarkably moronic.... I don't have anything against synthesizers or any electric keyboards, especially the touch sensitive ones. After all, they don't play themselves... A musical intrument is a vehicle for the creativity of its player. The creativity of the percussionist is not expressend in the time signature, however complex or unusually stated, but in how Time is advanced. The percussionist is the one who makes the piece get from here to there. A drum machine that regurgitates the result of prior programming cannot respond to the dynamics of a given performance. Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/23/85)
> > On "Sheltering Sky", Bruford basically tapped out on a log drum. ... > > drum machines can be and are valid tools of expression and utility. > > > The source of rhythm is unimportant. The point is that his tapping > (incidently, it was a conga with the skin slightly loosened) waxed and waned > with the dynamics of the tune, and with Bruford's own contribution > to the composition, something a drum machine could not have done. Quibbling, but it appeared to be a log drum he used in the live shows (I was far away, but not that far away). The use of a drum machine (or sequencer, it would seem that your argument is against things of their nature as well) to play some IMPORTANT repetitive part of a piece so as to free the players to make some "real" contributions on top of that is a useful one. > Maybe those things are useful to composers alone in studios, but > they are worthless in music meant to sound and be alive. That's an arbitrary value judgment (which is a whole 'nother discussion worth staying out of). An equally valid arbitrary value judgment was of the type that "these ee-lectronic gizmos aren't making real music that sounds alive, because ..." The value is in the end result, not in some pre-determination of the form "this uses an XXX, therefore it doesn't qualify as 'alive'". As evidenced by the Eno work I've already mentioned. >> [You] sound like the grumpy old fogey who condemned synthesizers twenty >> years ago, or the organ years before that (How dare they imitate the sounds >> of instruments with pipes? Unconscionable!). Of course there will always >> be bozos who use them like toys, but they serve a useful expressive purpose. > Using a pipe organ as a toy sounds remarkably moronic.... I don't have > anything against synthesizers or any electric keyboards, especially > the touch sensitive ones. After all, they don't play themselves... > A musical intrument is a vehicle for the creativity of its player. > The creativity of the percussionist is not expressend in the time > signature, however complex or unusually stated, but in how > Time is advanced. The percussionist is the one who makes the > piece get from here to there. A drum machine that regurgitates > the result of prior programming cannot respond to the dynamics of > a given performance. 1) Depends on who did the original performing. 2) Pipe organs WERE once looked upon as other supposedly emulative instruments were later looked upon, including the way you would look upon "drum machines". My point is NOT to look at (and listen to) WHAT *instrument* is being played and having a reaction (negative or positive---equally flaccid is "Wow, he's using a Frezzinbotzer!") but to look at and listen to THE END RESULT. To say "such machines CANNOT produce valid, 'alive' end results goes against the evidence, and strikes me as highly prejudicial. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/25/85)
> [Drum Machines can be used to] > to play some IMPORTANT repetitive part of a piece so as to free the players > to make some "real" contributions on top of that is a useful one. > > ...The value is in the end result, not in some pre-determination > of the form "this uses an XXX, therefore it doesn't qualify as 'alive'". > As evidenced by the Eno work I've already mentioned. > > ...look at and listen to THE END RESULT. To say "such machines CANNOT > produce valid, 'alive' end results goes against the evidence, and strikes me > as highly prejudicial. > Rich Rosen Perhaps an example is in order. On the album THE LONG MARCH, the tune "South Africa Goddamn" (A Max Roach/Archie Shepp duet), Roach opens with a drum solo, based on an odd, but simple beat (2/2.) As his solo is winding up, before Shepp starts playing, Max rushes the beat a bit. It may be a "mistake" or it may have been planned, but the effect is of Roach "holding his breath" while waiting to see which way SHepp will go. As the tenor enters, Roach shifts from a staccato snare to a rolling shuffle (still in 2/2), which swells and retreats in response to Shepp's line. The rhythmic result is perfectly matched to Shepp's sorrowful sound, as opposed to Roach's jagged, angry solo. Now, Archie Shepp is not commonly sad, but furious on the subject of South Africa, and I am sure Max had to adjust to his unexpectedly pastoral mood that day. It is a measure of Max's creativity that he completely altered the rhythmic feel of the piece, without changing the beat. THAT is what a drummer can do. Not every one is Max Roach, but any decent drummer will adapt similarly to a change in melodic intensity. As I see it, a preprogrammed machine, almost by definition, cannot react to an unfolding development. The melodist thus has not rhythmic challenge; Time deadens, and stops altogether. Result: dead music. Somebody sent me mail stating that as synthesizer thechnology advances, a player will be able to adjust their stored pattern in real time, in response to some melodic challenge. I would welcome such a development, for it would signal the end of those horribly lifeless machines and mean the creation of a new class of intruments for PEOPLE to play. It would return musical creation to the human mind, where it belongs. Marcel Simon
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/28/85)
Your Max Roach example shows how humans produce "alive" (by YOUR standards) music. They fail to show WHY drum machines ipso facto produce "dead music". Your standards of "aliveness" seem based on notions of jazz improvisation being the prime factor in "aliveness" of music. Does this mean that classical (sic) music, with all its notes written out in advance, is necessarily dead? -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
andy@sdcarl.UUCP (Andrew Voelkel) (05/30/85)
>pastoral mood that day. It is a measure of Max's creativity that >he completely altered the rhythmic feel of the piece, without >changing the beat. THAT is what a drummer can do. Not every one >is Max Roach, but any decent drummer will adapt similarly to a change >in melodic intensity. As I see it, a preprogrammed machine, almost >by definition, cannot react to an unfolding development. The >melodist thus has not rhythmic challenge; Time deadens, and stops >altogether. Result: dead music. > I don't want to get into this argument, but I would like to propose that a drum machine need not by definition be "followed", which is what everyone (myself included) has been doing to date. The marvelous thing about midi is that more complex control arrangements can be designed on a separate computer that can use just the timbres of a drum machine,sampler or synth. Given the proper input devices (keyboards, "simmons" pads w/midi, guitar interfaces), the electronic drum set that Marcel accepts as a valid instrument (am i wrong?) is but a trivial subset of the possibilities. Preprogrammed parts could follow live performers, or interact with them in more interesting ways. Such improvisational algorithms fascinate me, and I see that such tools designed properly could actually open up new possibilities for interaction between human performers because some` of the actual sounds can become "shared resources". I have been laying the groundwork for developing these ideas by writing a public domain device driver for the Roland MPU-401 and the ibm pc. So far I have just the normal record and play functions working, but the architecture will be open so as to encourage other musically mot- ivated programmers to provide the utilities I wont (ie fancy graphics or fancy editing). I'm almost ready to release what I've got. p.s. The reason for using the Roland box is that four can be ganged together for multiple realtime midi inputs. This is to provide for multiple "live" performers
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/01/85)
> Your Max Roach example shows how humans produce "alive" (by YOUR standards) > music. They fail to show WHY drum machines ipso facto produce "dead music". > Your standards of "aliveness" seem based on notions of jazz improvisation > being the prime factor in "aliveness" of music. Does this mean that > classical (sic) music, with all its notes written out in advance, is > necessarily dead? > -- > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Wrong on all counts. I used a jazz example because jazz is a medium I am familiar with. Rhythm is at the core of all music. I posted an article on the Kronos Quartet doing interpretations of Thelonious Monk. No improvisation whatsoever, yet the Quartet captures the essence of Monk's music. How? They grasp his sense of rhythm and it colors their reading of his music. The key is interpretation. Classical music gives its practitioners less leeway in remaking a piece in the player's image than jazz. As a result, interpretation is everything. Since you can't change the notes, you must really dig into the ones that are there and render your understanding of them, and of the piece as a whole. The subtle shadings and shifts of emphasis that are the interpretive devices of classical musicians are rhythmic in nature. The core of any successful composition, classical or otherwise, is rhythmic. Listen to the four note theme that begins Beethoven's Fifth. The dramatic impact ("thus fate knocks at our door") of the motif is due to its rhythmic, rather than harmonic content. Listen to Mozart's last two symphonies, his most personal. Listen to how agitated the themes and their developments are. Where is the source of the agitation? Surely not in the notes themselves, but in their presentation, which ones are emphasized and which ones are glossed over; in other words, by the rhythmic content of Mozart's writing. Going further afield, listen to the forceful breathing dynamics that form the principal characteristics of Japanese shakuhachi music. Surely they are not an intrinsic part of the instrument. No, they are rhythmic devices. I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture. Rhythm is at the core of any successful music. Rhythm is the essential part of performance because it is the only tool available across all types of musical performance. The sound of a drum machine, being the result of prior programming, can't participate in the subtle (and not so subtle) interplay of rhythmic variations that give a performance its tension and crackle. Conclusion: drum machines have no place in the performing process. Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like. Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting, lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to all these questions is no. Marcel Simon P.S. The essence of jazz is NOT improvisation. One only has to listen to Duke Ellington to disprove that (he often wrote his sidemen's solos). The essence of jazz is another discussion entirely, one that I will not start in this already too lengthy article. "What good is melody, what good is music When it's not possessing of something sweet Well it ain't the melody, and it ain't the music There's something else that makes this tune complete It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" Duke Ellington
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
>>Your Max Roach example shows how humans produce "alive" (by YOUR standards) >>music. They fail to show WHY drum machines ipso facto produce "dead music". >>Your standards of "aliveness" seem based on notions of jazz improvisation >>being the prime factor in "aliveness" of music. Does this mean that >>classical (sic) music, with all its notes written out in advance, is >>necessarily dead? [ROSEN] > Rhythm is at the core of all music. > ... the Kronos Quartet doing interpretations of Thelonious Monk. No > improvisation whatsoever, yet the Quartet captures the essence of Monk's > music. How? They grasp his sense of rhythm and it colors their reading > of his music. The key is interpretation. Classical music gives its > practitioners less leeway in remaking a piece in the player's image than jazz. > As a result, interpretation is everything. Since you can't change the > notes, you must really dig into the ones that are there and render > your understanding of them, and of the piece as a whole. The subtle > shadings and shifts of emphasis that are the interpretive devices of > classical musicians are rhythmic in nature. Any and all of those variations and interpretations can be demonstrated in electronic rhythm machines. Who is to say that the emphasis in music should be on the player's "interpretation"/alteration of the original intentions of the composer. Who better than the original composer to decide how he/she wants the music to be played? What you're complaining about (apparently) is the lack of "interpretation" on the part of the machine. Of course a machine doesn't get to interpret! A Linn or a Drumulator or whatever isn't designed to be an AI project. It's designed to be a recording/notational system of laying out a drum part to be reproduced as the composer intended. The ability to "interpret" only adds to the experience of the player, it doesn't *necessarily* add to the listener's experience in hearing what the composer had in mind, which IS the bottom line. > The core of any successful composition, classical or otherwise, is > rhythmic. Listen to the four note theme that begins Beethoven's Fifth. > The dramatic impact ("thus fate knocks at our door") of the motif > is due to its rhythmic, rather than harmonic content. That's funny, I always thought the core of a piece of music WAS the harmonic content. Perhaps that's based on what type of music I listen to. Perhaps your emphasis is based on the type of music YOU listen to and the way you listen to it. Personal value judgments, not factual truths about music. > I could go on, but I am sure you get the picture. Rhythm is at the core > of any successful music. Rhythm is the essential part of performance > because it is the only tool available across all types of musical > performance. The sound of a drum machine, being the result of prior > programming, can't participate in the subtle (and not so subtle) > interplay of rhythmic variations that give a performance its tension > and crackle. Conclusion: drum machines have no place in the performing > process. Crock! Rhythm is one of many elements that make up "successful" music, and it happens to be the one YOU personally place the most emphasis on. Fine. I state again, in your above paragraph you place particular emphasis on jazz improvisatory technique when you speak of interplay the way you do. Now, to take an absolutely contradictory point of view: The single most boring concert I have ever attended (with the exception of a Jerry Garcia show which very literally put me to sleep despite my proximity to the speakers) was a concert I saw by the Human League. Apparent reason: their use of tapes instead of live percussion (electronic or otherwise). The feeling I got out of the show was that NO ONE was doing anything percussion-wise. (It didn't seem like anyone except the vocalists was doing anything at all, and I'm not too sure about the vocalists.) This negative experience led me NOT to attend another show later that night at the Ritz featuring Depeche Mode (another band known for using electronics). Which is a shame, because I was told I missed a good show: Depeche Mode turns out to be very creative in their use of all this electronic machinery, invoking an incredible array of sounds that liven up a show. The point: it's not the tools that make the music, it's the way they're used by people. You still sound no different from someone who complains about those "new-fangled eelectronic gizmos", because they don't produce "natural" sound. His prejudice and emphasis are just as arbitrary as yours. > Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like. > Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting, > lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does > the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to > all these questions is no. For you, the answer is no, because of the way you choose to listen to music. Don't assume that that's true for everyone. GIVEN your emphasis, I think it unlikely that you could ever like a piece performed with a "drum machine". (Unless, of course, you listened to a piece without knowing, or caring, how the sound was made, and only found out afterwards. Which is my whole point: it doesn't matter HOW the sounds are made, what matters is WHAT sounds are made and how they affect the listener. To decide in advance "Oh, this uses a Flurrmnifizer so it must be awful" is blatantly prejudicial.) > P.S. The essence of jazz is NOT improvisation. One only has to listen > to Duke Ellington to disprove that (he often wrote his sidemen's solos). > The essence of jazz is another discussion entirely, one that I will not start > in this already too lengthy article. > "What good is melody, what good is music > When it's not possessing of something sweet > Well it ain't the melody, and it ain't the music > There's something else that makes this tune complete > It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing" Swing isn't JUST rhythm. Swing is undefinable. Try defining it some time. (Maybe Ellington's taste has the same musical emphasis that yours has. And maybe that's why you like him.) And where did I say that the essence of jazz is improvisation? -- "If you offend everybody, you're doing a good job." --David Steinberg on the subject of satire Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
andy@sdcarl.UUCP (Andrew Voelkel) (06/04/85)
Could you guys take this stupid discussion off the net? I think even the dullest of us understand both points by now. I read the net to obtain interesting in- formation I wouldn't see otherwise, not to listen to emotional arguments
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/05/85)
Re: article 1950@dcarl.UUCP > a drum machine need not by definition be "followed"... > Preprogrammed parts could follow live performers, or interact with them > in more interesting ways. Such improvisational algorithms fascinate > me, and I see that such tools designed properly could actually open up > new possibilities for interaction between human performers because some` > of the actual sounds can become "shared resources". > An intriguing idea. Is the technology able to handle that? I have not heard anything that remotely approaches the framework you cite. If the technology [ever] reaches a point where a player can interact in real time with a drum computer, the machine wil in essence become just another part in the percussionist's kit. I have no problem with that. The point here is that the machine is under control of the human, not replacing him/her, and thus reacting to the musical environment. Marcel Simon
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/05/85)
> > Rhythm is at the core of all music. [ME] > > As a result, interpretation is everything. > > The subtle shadings and shifts of emphasis that are the interpretive > > devices of classical musicians are rhythmic in nature. > > Any and all of those variations and interpretations can be demonstrated in > electronic rhythm machines. Who is to say that the emphasis in music should > be on the player's "interpretation"/alteration of the original intentions > of the composer. Who better than the original composer to decide how he/she > wants the music to be played? What happens when the composer is dead? You imply that only the composer of a piece can play or conduct it. Clearly absurd. Besides, the composer may *intentionally* leave room for interpretation. Listen to John Cage, who allows players the freedom to state his written notes with whatever inflections they desire. > machine doesn't get to interpret! A Linn or a Drumulator or whatever isn't > designed to be an AI project. It's designed to be a recording/notational > system of laying out a drum part to be reproduced as the composer intended. > The ability to "interpret" only adds to the experience of the player, it > doesn't *necessarily* add to the listener's experience in hearing what the > composer had in mind, which IS the bottom line. So in your world, all readings of a piece would be exactly alike, "aas the composer intended." How dull! You seek to remove from performance all traces of the player's personality. Why should any musician be interested in playing a piece when there is no incentive to see it any differently than anyone else who may have played it before? > > The core of any successful composition, classical or otherwise, is > > rhythmic. > > That's funny, I always thought the core of a piece of music WAS the harmonic > content. Perhaps that's based on what type of music I listen to. Perhaps > your emphasis is based on the type of music YOU listen to and the way you > listen to it. Personal value judgments, not factual truths about music. Harmony seeks to quantize music, a sound continuum, in [arbitrary] discrete steps. Harmony establishes [arbitrary] rules about acceptable and unacceptable relationships between notes. The history of music is one of new generations pushing against the limits imposed by the accepted harmonic rules of their day. Rhythm, on the other hand, pervades all music. There can be aharmonic and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. Stating that the core of a piece is its harmonic content is like saying that the meaning of a language is the way it is spelled. These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine; state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk. Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK? > Crock! Rhythm is one of many elements that make up "successful" music, and > it happens to be the one YOU personally place the most emphasis on. Fine. > I state again, in your above paragraph you place particular emphasis on > jazz improvisatory technique when you speak of interplay the way you do. True, many elements make up successful music, but rhythm is the MOST central among them. You have said nothing that refutes that. In fact you have said little that refutes my points in all your postings. For example, your posting responds to an article where none of the examples had anything to do with jazz. Yet you go claim that all I am looking for is jazz improvisation. Read what I say, damnit! > You still sound no different > from someone who complains about those "new-fangled eelectronic gizmos", > because they don't produce "natural" sound. His prejudice and emphasis are > just as arbitrary as yours. Give me a break!!!!! I have said nothing about sound, natural or otherwise. I object to drum machines because they lack rhythmic life, not because of the way they sound!!!!! Go back and reread all my postings on this matter. Now go back and read them again. There is not a SINGLE mention of "natural sound" among them. PLEASE do not resort to the sophistry you deplore in other newsgroups. > > Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like. > > Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting, > > lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does > > the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to > > all these questions is no. > > For you, the answer is no, because of the way you choose to listen to music. > Don't assume that that's true for everyone. GIVEN your emphasis, I think > it unlikely that you could ever like a piece performed with a "drum machine". > (Unless, of course, you listened to a piece without knowing, or caring, > how the sound was made, and only found out afterwards. Which is my whole > point: it doesn't matter HOW the sounds are made, what matters is WHAT sounds > are made and how they affect the listener. To decide in advance "Oh, this > uses a Flurrmnifizer so it must be awful" is blatantly prejudicial.) Skip the bullshit and do the experiment. Try and do it in good faith (That may be impossible for you :-) Now am I right or am I wrong? If I am wrong, how so? Let us discuss it. But do not give me any nonsense about my musical prejudices. You have demonstrated little tolerance yourself. Marcel Simon
td@alice.UUCP (Tom Duff) (06/05/85)
I have followed this argument with some amusement, since both sides seem to have such bad cases of head-wedge. Specifically, mhuxr!mfs claims the following: > Rhythm, on the other hand [as opposed to harmony], pervades all music. > There can be aharmonic > and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. > ... > These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range > of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine; > state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk. > Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK? Since the first two sentences are demonstrably untrue, so must be the third. As an example that most people might have heard, consider the Ligeti space-music used as sound-track in 2001. This stuff is strictly arrhythmic, consisting almost entirely of sliding clusters of held notes. It has no discernable meter or rhythm. Most middle-period Stockhausen has similar temporal structure (e.g. Mixtur, Gruppen, Kontakte.) (In fact, Stockhausen claims that Ligeti's and Penderecki's entire catalogs are ripped-off bits of Mixtur. But, I digress.) Since there is demonstrably arrhythmic music, it must be the case that any statement to the contrary is either a falsehood or a value judgement of the form ``That stuff's not music, because it hasn't got any rhythm.'' This calls into question the fourth and following sentences in the above quote. Apparently, mfs doesn't listen to a particularly wide range of music, or he thinks that Mozart, Johnny Cash, The Rolling Stones and Oscar Peterson circumscribe the range of `real' music. As for the general arguments, both for and against modern Drum Machines, they are all disposed of in `...Who Needs Enemies', an album by Henry Kaiser and Fred Frith. Kaiser composed all the drum tracks on this album on a LinnDrum. They are (at times) intensely arrythmic, extremely unrigid and unmetrical, original, exciting, (append adjectives ad nauseum.) When I talked to him about it, Henry said that the folks a Linn were `astounded' at the things he got the machine to do. It is hard to come up with objective statements describing the LinnDrum's musical (as opposed to technical) limitations. ``It isn't easy to play in real time'' is about as far as I would be willing to go. Those who value the real-time aspects of performance (particularly improvisers) will see this as crucial. Some of the rest of us may not. (Note that Frith and Kaiser, mentioned above, are free improvisers.) above, are free improvisers.) mfs's statements on the role of harmony in music and the function of performers also seem pretty narrow. As a composer, I think of performers as a necessary evil. Performers stand between the composer and his audience, and necessarily dilute the composer's ideas when they introduce their own. Performers call this `interpretation' and elevate it to a virtue. Fortunately, as technology matures composers can more and more afford to view performers as an optional component of the music, and need not delegate to them any aesthetic decisions they wish to arrogate to themselves.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/06/85)
>>> Rhythm is at the core of all music. >>> As a result, interpretation is everything. >>> The subtle shadings and shifts of emphasis that are the interpretive >>> devices of classical musicians are rhythmic in nature. [SIMON] >>Any and all of those variations and interpretations can be demonstrated in >>electronic rhythm machines. Who is to say that the emphasis in music should >>be on the player's "interpretation"/alteration of the original intentions >>of the composer. Who better than the original composer to decide how he/she >>wants the music to be played? [ROSEN] > What happens when the composer is dead? You imply that only the composer > of a piece can play or conduct it. Clearly absurd. Besides, the composer > may *intentionally* leave room for interpretation. Listen to John Cage, > who allows players the freedom to state his written notes with whatever > inflections they desire. [SIMON] I imply no such thing. Your stating that I do is absurd. A composer who "leaves room for [such] interpretation" is not composing, he is providing a framework in which others get to compose as they perform. >>machine doesn't get to interpret! A Linn or a Drumulator or whatever isn't >>designed to be an AI project. It's designed to be a recording/notational >>system of laying out a drum part to be reproduced as the composer intended. >>The ability to "interpret" only adds to the experience of the player, it >>doesn't *necessarily* add to the listener's experience in hearing what the >>composer had in mind, which IS the bottom line. > So in your world, all readings of a piece would be exactly alike, "aas the > composer intended." How dull! You seek to remove from performance > all traces of the player's personality. Why should any musician be > interested in playing a piece when there is no incentive to see it > any differently than anyone else who may have played it before? In "my" world, all readings of a book are exactly the same, they have the same words, the same pages, the same illustrations, etc. Yet each time you read the book, it affects you differently. "How dull" you say? The challenge of being a performer is in the discipline of evoking the intent of the composer through one's performance, as an actor does in theatrical performance. Performers who make such vivacious interpretations that they have a characteristic all their own is in fact composing variations on the composer's "theme". >>> The core of any successful composition, classical or otherwise, is >>> rhythmic. >> >>That's funny, I always thought the core of a piece of music WAS the harmonic >>content. Perhaps that's based on what type of music I listen to. Perhaps >>your emphasis is based on the type of music YOU listen to and the way you >>listen to it. Personal value judgments, not factual truths about music. > Harmony seeks to quantize music, a sound continuum, in [arbitrary] discrete > steps. Harmony establishes [arbitrary] rules about acceptable > and unacceptable relationships between notes. The history of music is > one of new generations pushing against the limits imposed by the > accepted harmonic rules of their day. > > Rhythm, on the other hand, pervades all music. There can be aharmonic > and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. > Stating that the core of a piece is its harmonic content is like > saying that the meaning of a language is the way it is spelled. > These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range > of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine; > state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk. > Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK? I answered this section in replying to Tom Duff's followup article, which showed that there is indeed arhythmic music, and that rhythm is indeed just one of many components, but the one that Mr. Simon sees as most important as part of his personal taste, as is his right as a human being. >>Crock! Rhythm is one of many elements that make up "successful" music, and >>it happens to be the one YOU personally place the most emphasis on. Fine. > True, many elements make up successful music, but rhythm is the MOST > central among them. You have said nothing that refutes that. But you've said nothing to PROVE that, so why I am obliged to provide evidence to DISPROVE it? It is but ONE element of music, and it is your favorite element. Mine is harmony. That is why you get off on your favorite music and I get off on Ives' "Central Park in the Dark", Brian Wilson's "Caroline No", and most of the output of Claude Debussy and the early work of Stravinsky. You've given no evidence that proves your personal taste is an absolute. >>You still sound no different >>from someone who complains about those "new-fangled eelectronic gizmos", >>because they don't produce "natural" sound. His prejudice and emphasis are >>just as arbitrary as yours. > Give me a break!!!!! I have said nothing about sound, natural or otherwise. > I object to drum machines because they lack rhythmic life, not because > of the way they sound!!!!! Go back and reread all my postings on this matter. I doesn't matter what you have stated as your objection to them, your objection still SOUNDS the same as the person I described above. In both cases, the judgment is being made about the instrument in advance, rather than judging by the end result, which is ALL that matters. >>> Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like. >>> Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting, >>> lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does >>> the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to >>> all these questions is no. >>For you, the answer is no, because of the way you choose to listen to music. >>Don't assume that that's true for everyone. GIVEN your emphasis, I think >>it unlikely that you could ever like a piece performed with a "drum machine". >>(Unless, of course, you listened to a piece without knowing, or caring, >>how the sound was made, and only found out afterwards. Which is my whole >>point: it doesn't matter HOW the sounds are made, what matters is WHAT sounds >>are made and how they affect the listener. To decide in advance "Oh, this >>uses a Flurrmnifizer so it must be awful" is blatantly prejudicial.) > Skip the bullshit and do the experiment. Try and do it in good > faith (That may be impossible for you :-) Now am I right or am I wrong? You're wrong, because I'm the one who already likes music with and without "drum machines". The experiment is yours to perform. Listen to a set of music with and without rhythm machines or whatever, and decide which you like and don't like based on how they sound, not on whether or not you think they use the dreaded machines. I'll help provide a choice of music if you like. > If I am wrong, how so? Let us discuss it. But do not give me any nonsense > about my musical prejudices. You have demonstrated little tolerance > yourself. Oh, please, refrain from the name calling! (I had to edit quite a bit of it out.) Musical prejudices are not nonsense. We all have musical tastes and peccadillos, but some of us try not to let them get in the way of prejudicing their view of the sound. Then again, some of us don't bother trying. I always had the impression that you were one of the former group and not the latter. -- "If you offend everybody, you're doing a good job." --David Steinberg on the subject of satire Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/06/85)
> Rhythm, on the other hand [as opposed to harmony], pervades all music. > There can be aharmonic > and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. > ... > These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range > of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. You disagree. Fine; > state your assumptions, observations and conclusions. Let us talk. > Save the value judgments on my assumptions, OK? [MARCEL SIMON] | Since the first two sentences are demonstrably untrue, so must be the third. | As an example that most people might have heard, | consider the Ligeti space-music used as sound-track in 2001. This stuff | is strictly arrhythmic, consisting almost entirely of sliding clusters of | held notes. It has no discernable meter or rhythm. Most middle-period | Stockhausen has similar temporal structure (e.g. Mixtur, Gruppen, Kontakte.) | (In fact, Stockhausen claims that Ligeti's and Penderecki's entire catalogs | are ripped-off bits of Mixtur. But, I digress.) Since there is demonstrably | arrhythmic music, it must be the case that any statement to the contrary | is either a falsehood or a value judgement of the form ``That stuff's not | music, because it hasn't got any rhythm.'' This calls into question the | fourth and following sentences in the above quote. Apparently, mfs doesn't | listen to a particularly wide range of music, or he thinks that Mozart, | Johnny Cash, The Rolling Stones and Oscar Peterson circumscribe the range | of `real' music. [TOM DUFF] The examples I was thinking of included Vangelis' "Creation du Monde" from "L'Apocalypse des Animaux", but the point is taken. Rhythm is just ONE of many elements in music, and anyone who claims it or any other element is THE *main* element is simply expressing a personal taste and preference. | mfs's statements on the role of harmony in music and the function of |*performers also seem pretty narrow. As a composer, I think of performers |*as a necessary evil. Performers stand between the composer and his |*audience, and necessarily dilute the composer's ideas when they introduce |*their own. Performers call this `interpretation' and elevate it to a |*virtue. Fortunately, as technology matures composers can more and |*more afford to view performers as an optional component of the music, |*and need not delegate to them any aesthetic decisions they wish to |*arrogate to themselves. [TOM DUFF] I know a statement like this is bound to raise the great performer/composer dichotomy debate to its lowest point ever by starting a usenet argument about it, but all I can say is "Hear! Hear!" to Tom Duff. I couldn't agree more. Although I've enjoyed performing and recognize the way a performance can result in musical growth and "aliveness" (as Simon calls it), the conception of the work in the mind of the composer is in fact a dilution if not a bastardization of his/her original intent. If performers want to express something other than the ideas of the original composer in a piece of music, let them write their own music, or write their own unique arrangement of the composer's piece and label it as such. -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
chris@scgvaxd.UUCP (Chris Yoder) (06/07/85)
[bug poison]
I feel that Marcel Simon has made some very good points about rhythm
being the core of most music. Actually, he has been claiming that all music
has at it's core rhythm, but I have to take some exception to that statement.
I will agree that all rhythm *should* be under human control in a performace
situation but I can think of two "art music" (some, mistakenly, call it
"Clasical music") pieces that I have either performed in or listened to
(live) where one of the instruments was essentially a recording of a steady,
driving beat. I believe that one of these was called "time" and in it there
was this steady, pulsing beat that was recorded on a tape and played back
during the performance, that started out relatively slowly, and then
(in quantam leaps) got steadily faster through the peice. The orchestra (as
I remember) played in what seemed to be a random manner around this beat.
The point of the piece was to experiment with one's notion of time. At
first, things seemed to move slowly, and then they moved more and more
quickly but all of a sudden, it seemed that things slowed down, even though
the driving rhythm was by this time pulsing more rapidly than at any other
time (sort of like a spoked wheel that seems to go backwards once it's
moving quickly enough).
All this was to show that drum machines (or "steady rhythm machines")
*can* be used very efectivly in a concert enviornment. In art music, the
more far out composers are actually playing with the fringes of rhythmic
notions as well as harmonic ones. I have been in a choir that performed
some very interesting modern art music pieces where the rhythm wasn't even
under the control of the director!!! Instead the director would cue a
section and then at some random interval after that people w/i the section
would come in. It was a lot of fun, and *very* difficult!
I think that what I'm trying to say is that in different pieces rhythm
means different things. Some use a steady pulsing beat to great advantage and
some require that the piece flow with the current mood of the performance,
and what the conductor (or leader, or performer) slide the rhythm about for
a truely interesting performance.
Marcel Simon suggests:
> Try one last experiment: listen to some piece of music that you DON'T like.
> Any piece, it does not matter. Concentrate on the rhythm. Is it interesting,
> lively? Does it grab you irresistibly, and pull you along? Does
> the piece get from here to there? I am willing to bet that the answer to
> all these questions is no.
There are many pieces that I can't stand intellectually but that I
find myself singing along with and be-bobing to the beat with. These pieces
invariably have a lively rhythm that is actually quite boring at it's base
level (Disco is a clasic example). These pieces invariably pull me along
and grab me irresistibly, but I still can't stand them (usually because they
don't hold the intellectual side of me interested). NOTE: This rhythm is
(to me) very boring, yet very lively.
Interestingly enough, when I started this artical I was going to flame
on rhythm machines wholeheartedly, but once I got into it I realized that
they do, indead, have thier uses, mostly in music that I don't like,
sometimes in music that I do like. Please, don't flame me for my taste in
music, I won't flame you for yours.
--
-- Chris Yoder
UUCP --- {allegra|ihnp4}!scgvaxd!engvax!chris
<Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you...>
{ The opinions here are representative of Huge Aircrash, not me and
*especially* not of my poor little keyboard. 8-)=
}jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/13/85)
I don't give a rip about drum machines, one way or another, but I do have one comment: > Rhythm, on the other hand, pervades all music. There can be aharmonic > and amelodic music, but there is no such thing as arrhythmic music. > Stating that the core of a piece is its harmonic content is like > saying that the meaning of a language is the way it is spelled. > These are *not* value judgements. I listen to a pretty wide range > of music, and these are the conclusions I reach. A piece of music in which all voices occur at random (time) intervals would be arrhythmic. I have heard a few pieces that were close to this - certainly I have heard ones where there was a pretty much continous flow of sound without obvious accent. Ah, you say, but as long as notes occur in time you have rhythm! (Pardon me for momentarily putting words in your mouth. You can take them out any time you like.) Well, yes, in the sense that you can say: "as long as you have several notes in the same voice, you have melody", or "as long as you hear one set of three simultaneous notes move to another set, you have harmony". But in all three of these cases, if there is an absence of intent, you have a[rhythm, melody, harmony]. It's also true that people like to sense patterns where none exist (ever see patterns on the screen of a TV tuned to a blank channel?), so perhaps such music would not seem arrhythmic to some listeners. no flames here, Jeff Winslow