A Sad State of Affairs
What on earth can we say about music today? Clearly it is stuck in a rut.
A rut it has been in for over 150 years now. And the rut gets narrower
as time goes by.
What of traditional musics? Musical diversity is being
lost as world music traditions and styles are absorbed into the
Western Practice. That practice feeds back into native musics which
are all being homogenized. As the planet becomes smaller, art can not be
distinguished from commodity. Diversity is dead. Only one product is
available. Every music factory produces the same carefully marketed
product.
Yes, there are different songs to be heard on the radio that you can tap
your foot to. You can always tune in to something new to accompany the
background noise our lives have become. Some music is momentarily enjoyable.
Occasionaly a song may even provide a brief respite from the desperation
of our lives. A brief interlude from the monotony of continuous, shallow
novelty. Little is memorable.
What of the role of the individual as artist? This concept is dead.
Perhaps it never was alive but a phantom. If you identify yourself as
a composer or artist the first question is “What kind of music do you
write? What is it similar to? Who has influenced you?” If you can not
paint yourself as an imitation of something else—preferably something
known to be popular and fashionable—it is not worth even taking a look.
Why waste our time with a product we might not like? We want something proven!
We deserve proven safe results! Keep risk away from us. Bring in governments to
protect us from ourselves. Think of the children. Don’t our family and
friends deserve to be kept safe from danger? We want good music, music
that is something we can completely define in one or two words to our
friends who listen to the same great music we do... music solidly of
type ‘B'... music just like what’s playing right now on channel 143.
What of new musical forms, practices and sounds? Something called modern
music appeared 100 years ago. Since then things have moved to what is called
new music, perhaps 50 years old. I was excited to first hear these musics.
They were indeed different, and it was intellectually interesting to listen
to composers describe mathematical constructs used to create their works.
The creations, although initally difficult to listen to, could become tolerable
and even intriguing after repeated exposure. But emotion was always absent.
There was no passion beyond the passion of numbers. Eventually after listening
to enough ‘new music’, it became sadly clear that much of it was the same.
Few composers could even be distinguished from one another. Shrieks,
rattles, glissandos, and bizarre feats of virtuosity from the performer
define the genre.
The New Music satisfied my yearning for novelty, but little else.
There was no depth.
Of interest was the intolerance by these composers when
they encountered anything that did not sound like what they were
already doing or any concepts not espoused by the latest esoteric
diva or fussy professor.
Especially despised was any bizarrely different work that was not
annoying to ordinary people. Some new music composers take pride in
their ability to write music that most people can not relate to. Perhaps
it is a badge of elite honor. Missing are unique creations that express
anything.
Will it ever change? The world is now interconnected. Topless islanders,
aboriginals in the outback, nomadic goat-herders of Ubekistan, Eskimos
and Buddhist monks listen to MP3 files of the latest teeny-bopper sensation,
downloaded into their cell phones. Can anything new happen in such an
environment? Is total isolation necessary? Will expressive art even be
tolerated?
Maybe not anytime soon.
How it came to be
I was deaf until I was four years old and avoided the sonic brainwashing
during those early and critical developmental years in which
the structure of my brain was wired out, so I have been able to hear
things clearly, free of cultural bias. My hearing of music
was wired according to the natural understanding of the universal
music, of which persons born deaf have a unique appreciation.
These nonoctave compositions sound completely consonant and consist of wonderful and
mysterious harmonies. By opening your own perception up and listening
carefully over and over, you too can be deprogrammed of the fascist hold the
music you are used to hearing has wrenched upon your weary spirit.
Next I will discuss two interesting aspects of my music, tuning and motion.
First I discuss what I think about it and why I think that way, then I
discuss how I do what I do.
Unheard Harmonies Bring Ancient Emotions Long Forgotten
|
Philosophy of Tuning
The album
This is Not For Realsies
was my first album composed entirely with a tuning system free of octaves.
The interval of the octave, a frequency ratio of 2:1, has dominated Western and many non-Western
musical systems, theories, and compositions for thousands of years. Misconceptions
and misunderstandings regarding the octave are so pervasive and yet so
unsubstantiated as to qualify as the oldest urban legend, wives tale, or
perhaps even False God of Consonance — readily
worshiped and vigorously defended by the unquestioning populace, unaware that
any alternatives exist.
Assuming a ubiquitous blissful ignorance of the
masses of music consumers, many composers and
theorists have created an inability to listen.
The monopoly of octave-music has
brainwashed the masses by training their
neural nets to turn away from creative, superlative music
and embrace only the same old things
present in our world de rigeur
cultures. This saturation and over-training
of octave-oriented music has led to a naïve
understanding of music, of music perception, physics and
psychoacoustics
by the academic elite. The inexperience of many
technicians in these fields is evident in their
repeating of mantras and common-sense
notions as if they were immutable natural
laws, without bothering to test their validity.
These beliefs are held dearly and defended
vehemently, recalling the way in which the morality of
slavery and human sacrifice has been and still is
accepted by many world cultures.
Must it be this way? No! Music yearns to breath
free. When music is released from the tyranny of
the octave, it opens up, it runs, it jumps, it flies.
Colors never seen before flood the landscape below,
immersing the spirit as ineffable emotions clarify within.
The poisonous lies of the world precipitate at the
bottom of the solution where they can be easily
identified and removed. Eyes become opened, love
is awakened, and the spirit runs free.
But how can this be? Haven’t we been told that octaves
are necessary in every tuning system — that they are an intrinsic
part of the human’s ability to comprehend structure and meaning in music?
The truth is there is nothing natural about octaves. Yes
— octaves are easy to identify and tune; and
lacking sophisticated equipment and techniques,
these and other just (just intervals are tuned to
exact low whole number ratios) intervals such as
3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and 6:5 provide a basis for easily
recreatable tuning. However, tuning is no longer
limited to the ability of the human ear to
recreate a particular, arbitrary frequency.
The concept of expedient tunability that has led to a favoring
of just tunings as the basis of all systems of tuning is separate from
the perception of consonance, dissonance, and pleasing or otherwise emotionally
affective sounds. For example, many people find Western twelve-tone equal-temperament
(12tET) full of yummy consonance and soothing sonic delights
even though only the 2:1 octave, 3:2 fifth and 4:3 fourth are anywhere
near what is theoretically considered consonant. The thirds are so far from pure, or just tones, that they
can only qualify as completely dissonant under any “natural” psychoacoustic
theory of scale construction. Despite this, people — especially modern
trained musicians — hear 12tET thirds as consonant intervals. This
is a learned preference, not natural at all. The thirds are too far
from pure to explain a preference based on the easily identifiable and
tunable just intervals. “Easy to tune by hand” and “sounds good” are
not the same.
But what does science say? Various experiments have been conducted that seem to indicate
a natural wiring of the brain that can chunk octaves together especially
well — more so than other intervals. When examined closely, these experiments
can be seen to be misleading in terms of over-generalizing. Yet
they are ritually chanted from the mouths of the octave faithful
as scientific confirmation of the supposed divine benediction granted
upon the octave. These claims are nothing more than myths, as has been
discovered by many of those who transcend the comforting acceptance of what is
“commonly known” and dare to listen for themselves.
For example, the ever-ascending octave-biased Shepard Tone aural
illusion is just as striking in the non-octave analog constructed by Pierce.
The human wetware does not intrinsically prefer octaves. That is
a learned trait.
There are compositional issues involved.
If you are going to have only one interval in your scale be ‘in tune’,
why would you pick the octave? It is not of interest harmonically since
it evokes no mood. Melodically it is infrequently used. Its main use is
to fatten up, thicken, add body to the texture — which octaves
do in an inoffensive, thin, and uncomplicated way.
Let’s examine how we came to this point historically. Let us examine
why was the octave selected as the base of most Western tuning
systems? It is unlikely that any composer would have made the decision
as an expressive choice.
The answer is: to facilitate the technology available.
Octave repeats make acoustic keyboard instruments easier to tune.
This is like how punch cards are easier to read mechanically
than printed text (which requires optical character recognition algorithms
and high-speed digital computers.) Even so, we do not forget that the
issue of mechanical facility is different from human comprehension
and expression — humans find it difficult to read punch cards,
but easy to read and be affected by printed text.
Likewise, octave tunings are easier to tune but they have very little
expressive capabilities; very little complexity compared to what else is
out there — the expressive realm no one had the courage to touch lest
it burn their puny quills with its fiery hot power of emotion which
nonoctave tunings can ignite.
Now if the octave doesn’t hold the scale together, what does?
It’s simple. Scale cohesion is caused by a repeating pattern of intervals.
The size of the repeat is not relevant and certainly does not
need to be the octave which is a dull, dead sounding interval anyway.
The use of the backwards octave in the past is forgivable, given the
constraints of medieval technology. No such excuse is available
for modern songwrights and tunesmiths. Will there be any takers? Why
not give yourself a chance and see?
Technology of Tuning
Now that you know where I am coming from with tuning, you can check out the
custom software I use to explore and create
these amazing realms of expressive possibilities. And don’t worry — if you do
make a conscious and informed choice to write music that uses octaves, this
software is great too! It just doesn’t limit you to octaves that’s all, but
leaves the choice and freedom to the composer.
Playful Sounds Move About in Space, Tickling and Teasing
|
Philosophy of motion
A traditional Western view has been that music is composed of rhythm, melody and
harmony. Melody is different pitches over time and harmony is different pitches
at the same time. Each of these components can then be isolated and analyzed and is
supposed to comprise a unique and separable component of music. More advanced
studies may add dynamics (loudness, emphasis) and timbral color to the toolbox a composer
may draw from; timbre often limited to the study of classical orchestration,
the mixing together of sounds of different orchestra instruments.
Of course, most musicians and composers realize that these components are not really separable,
that they go together and that one does not usually compose by generating rhythm
and melody separately, but that they come together (although it is often the case
that harmony is separable in that it is not composed at the same time, but in a
separate compositional pass.)
To these traditional components I add motion. I claim that the motion of sound
through space is another dimension of expression possible in a musical line.
Why shouldn’t a melody dance around in space? In Indonesia, dancing melodies
have been around for at least two-thousand years.
Moving a melody through one path instead of another, or at
different speeds can produce different emotional impacts. Music composed with
integrated motion crafted within can sound richer and fuller. This is like
how a song with harmony and melody played together can sound
fuller than the same song with just the melody playing.
Also, I find that compositions can have sections that are much denser — with
more parts played together — than can normally be comfortably listened to. This is
because the different trajectories of each contrapuntal line assists the ear
to distinguish it from the others.
Each of these observations leads to new tools and techniques. These techniques
are not a panacea but are simply tools that a composer may use to expand his
palette of sonic resources and hence emotional expression.
Technology of Motion
Having realized the benefits of adding motion to the toolbox,
I was left in a quandary. Existing technology gave me panning (changing the
volume balance between left and right speakers), and little else.
I wanted a way to move sound around that was very realistic — that could move
all around (rather than being limited to moving between two speakers)
and even produce doppler shift. No such tools to do this were available.
Rather than complain that I could not express myself artistically because there
are no tools available which I found suitable (a trap many potential artists fall into),
I worked for years experimenting with sound and developing different methods
of interactively and dynamically positioning sound to find
better and better ways.
Rather than complaining about our lot in life, I find this approach
of self-sufficiency is often more helpful and satisfying. Further
details of the methods I single-handedly developed and the history of the software
and algorithms may be found on my page about
holographic audio algorithms.