Modern Mozart

[roryk]

In Squarepusher's wikipedia entry he says that he thinks that classical composers were restrained by their instruments and that computers have allowed modern composers musical freedom from that restraint. His point is excellent, and it has to logically be true. There are only so many sounds a violin can make, only so many sounds a tuba or a cello

Comments

[aelphaba]

"Vaudeville is a lunch counter art. But art is so vague and lunch is so real."

Abstract art on the surface is piss, we can all make it - for me the art is in the reaction of those who defend and condemn it.

[mfisher]

I was going to post to ask whether the electronic composers roryk cited were composing for different reasons and under different circumstances than the classical composers; aelphaba point is very similar.

Beethoven (1770-1827), for instance, was one of the first (noteworthy, anyway) composers to break away from commissioned by royalty or church to being self-funded through public performances and sales of his works. His incentives/motivations would be far different from Vivaldi's (1678-1741), as Vivaldi mainly had to keep his boss happy.

If we focus on Beethoven because he's got the profit motive in common, then did he compose with the hope that his music would still be enjoyed nearing 200 years later or simply because he wanted to do cool stuff (like adding a chorus to an orchestra)?

[daft]

Don't look at me, man. My favorite musical acts are "dude with a guitar."
Me, I also think Pollock and all that is crap. Process or no process. It's like this: I *like* writing abstract poetry. I find it calming and cathartic and all that crap. But I really, really hate reading it and I certainly don't expect anyone to read and enjoy mine. Some of my favorite poems I've ever written were form poetry (Terzanelles, pantoums, etc.) even though they were HARD to write the finished product was so much more satisfying. I still don't think they're genius, but being restricted in that way forced me to really reach beyond just doing what felt good and expanding my vocabulary in order to get my point across. Thank the innernet fer thesaurii and the rhyming dictionary

[coco_b]

my comment echos bds' but doesn't sound as smart: i think physical instruments just sound better. hearing someone play a violin right next to you, or even on a recording, far surpasses the fake string sounds computers make. same for voice and every other instrument.

[grahams]

I think that Rory's point is that the promise of electronic instruments isn't that they are able to emulate existing physical instruments, but instead that they are able to make wholly new sounds that are unrelated to tangible instruments...

I agree that synthesized instruments emulating a physical instrument always lose out to the real thing... But if you want to emulate, why not just play the real thing.

[coco_b]

because it's cheaper to buy a synthesizer than to hire a 500-piece orchestra

[bds]

Yeah, sounds of the future will be totally unlike those from physical instruments. But there's something we have to take from hands-on music. The ability to take an instrument and make it your own, channeling feelings through it, is what separates real instruments from today's cookie cutter techno sounds. It's good that people keep emulating in order to push this forward.

[anonymous]

do you like Shpongle?