SOCIAL DRIFT

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

User avatar
Niallllll
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:31 am
Contact:

Post by Niallllll » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:04 pm

Clemon09 wrote:
Niall i've been here three years - long enough to name those bands.
hope you are happy together :D !
Don't we all know it, you dicky wicky cunty woo!!!
As a biologist!

Clemon09
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:43 pm

Post by Clemon09 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:13 am

xdugef wrote:
Clemon09 wrote: ts theory sucks big time, make no sense
maybe you should be sure before you continue to try to kick me in the balls... for my sake i mean.
[/quote]
meh. unless you can explain: let's never talk of this again!

noise boards: pretty much won't put up with shit that other places wouldn't :D
Hey clem, refresh yr browser.


:D

Clemon09
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:43 pm

Post by Clemon09 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:18 am

Sleep Of Ages wrote:I'm sure, if you had balls I would kick 'em
yeah my problem is definitely that i'm not confident enough :D !
Hey clem, refresh yr browser.


:D

User avatar
zorthian
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by zorthian » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:49 pm

I don't think your theory makes any sense.

User avatar
socialdrift
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:17 am

Post by socialdrift » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:27 am

zorthian wrote:I don't think your theory makes any sense.
why :) ??

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15439
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Post by xdugef » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:31 am

socialdrift wrote:
zorthian wrote:I don't think your theory makes any sense.
why :) ??
Image

User avatar
socialdrift
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:17 am

Post by socialdrift » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:10 am

damn you picard :D !


anyway, what's so confusing - mr myato is right that i just draw a series of [three] analogies between what adorno says about schoenberg and timestretched noise.
it may be that what he says does not extend to timestretched noise. but that's life :shrug:







too metaphorical i mean.

User avatar
Sleep Of Ages
Posts: 6161
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:55 am
Location: Middle of Fucking Nowhere Jungleland
Contact:

Post by Sleep Of Ages » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:47 am

Ah, fuck off with this shit in every thread, choose one and stick to it, ffs.

Edit: Hahahaha, this is the thread about SD, duh me :doh:
Last edited by Sleep Of Ages on Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4832
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:04 am

First-

" The point of this text is to develop the relation between my own noise and Schoenberg's music. There are three things that Adorno talks about that I have completely taken out of context, probably misunderstood, and used to draw parallels between timestretched noise and Schoenberg's music.

Part one
Expressive-dynamic and rhythmic-spatial listening.

I started timestretching noise to help me understand the meaning of a passage in Adorno's Philosophy of New Music. "

This is confusing - you want the text to develop a relation based on out of "context" and "probably misunderstood" things - yet the timestreching was made in order to understand Adorno's text. The text in drawing a parallel does so because you decided to timestrech to understand Adorno's text in the first place. That sounds like an empty tautology. Of course the text will succeed because the timestreching makes the link for you. Regardless of if the link is valid. I might say that I'm going to boil an egg to understand Bach. Then I'm going to see if there is a link between egg-boiling and Bach - and what do you know - there is - its my own doing!

Second -

"While there is lots to timbre besides harmonic content, their rhythm pitch and harmonic content is what defines them."

Do you mean "rhythm pitch" - which is confusing, or rhythm, pitch - as pitch is not a component of timbre.

Third-
"It is true that music has tone and rhythm too but i argue that there they are no more essential to the musical project than general timbre. "

When you say tone - what do you mean? Pitch or timbre? Whatever the musical project is? What is it? Western music, classical etc. And its far from certain that timbre was critical, as the adoption of serialism was a rejection of the diatonics of previous western music which is founded in production on the Major Minor scales.

". I think that timbre is essential to music in a way that it isn't in noise."

How ? Seems that Bach can be played on a variety of instruments all with different timbres.


Fourth.

" So I have argued that timestretching noise changes what essential to it, the same - its rhythm pitch and harmonic content."

But noise in general is considered pitchless and rhythm less. And lacks specific harmonics. Do you want sources for this or can you not hear this in Noise esp HN and HNW.

" More generally noise music may contain aspects such as improvisation, extended technique, cacophony and indeterminacy, and in many instances conventional use of melody, harmony, rhythm and pulse is often dispensed with."

OK - I think we have a reasonable start to questioning the text? Can we deal with these first 4 points?

User avatar
socialdrift
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:17 am

Post by socialdrift » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:53 am

thanks for that j;lat :)

first point - i guess you listen in different ways... i hear things and i want to know why they make me feel or think in certain ways. so timestretched noise might make me do so as if i were listening to schoenberg. that is all. to someone who definitely understood noise / schoenberg, that probably isn't the case though, so i agree it's tenuous.
part two - i guess that's an error, yes.
part three - i think by tone i meant harmonics. i will check that properly soon... i was suggesting that timbre in music isn't reduced to harmonics, unlike in noise - because noise is about manipulating the harmonics of a sound
the new orchestra will achieve the most complex and novel aural emotions not by incorporating a succession of life-imitating noises but by manipulating fantastic juxtapositions of these varied tones and rhythms.
yes you can play bach on different instruments, you are right. but that doesn't mean that the timbre is beside the point in understanding the performance. does it?
part four - i think that HN and HNW has harmonics that are irregular in time and intensity. isn't that what russolo is saying, anyway?



but anyway casting doubt on something shouldn't mean excommunication hehe :) !

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4832
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:21 am

socialdrift wrote:thanks for that j;lat :)

first point - i guess you listen in different ways... i hear things and i want to know why they make me feel or think in certain ways. so timestretched noise might make me do so as if i were listening to Schoenberg. that is all. to someone who definitely understood noise / Schoenberg, that probably isn't the case though, so i agree it's tenuous.
Well you were wondering why people couldn't understand - if " timestretched noise might make me do so as if i were listening to Schoenberg. that is all" then there is no argument - it's a subjective phenomena. Your " me understand the meaning" would confuse in light of your subjective feelings regarding timestreching and Schoenberg.
socialdrift wrote:
part two - i guess that's an error, yes.
part three - i think by tone i meant harmonics. i will check that properly soon... i was suggesting that timbre in music isn't reduced to harmonics, unlike in noise - because noise is about manipulating the harmonics of a sound
Is it? I don't think you can rely on Russolo - I'm not aware of contemporary noise being about specifically manipulating harmonics.
socialdrift wrote: i think that HN and HNW has harmonics that are irregular in time and intensity.
Well then they cease to be harmonic! Irregularity would seem to destroy harmony..!
socialdrift wrote: isn't that what russolo is saying, anyway?
He is I think addressing a new musical form of composition (100 years ago!) using new forms of sound generation - how that relates to contemporary noise is something you need to show. I can't see much direct evidence. And don't forget the futurists were fascists and advocate war. Do you really want to share the aesthetics and philosophy of the likes of deathkey?

But I hope you see those who could not follow your argument couldn't as its more an expression of your feelings regarding Adorno / Schoenberg and Time stretching. As I have said before the text should be regarded therefore as "performative" and not explanatory.

User avatar
timdrage
Posts: 5529
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:08 am
Contact:

Post by timdrage » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:21 am

part four - i think that HN and HNW has harmonics that are irregular in time and intensity. isn't that what russolo is saying, anyway?
Russolo never said anything about HN or HNW, they didn't exist as genres or ideas until long after he was dead

User avatar
socialdrift
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:17 am

Post by socialdrift » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:46 am

ok but if i explained why russolo is right, would that mean it wasn't bullshit?

User avatar
Striations
Posts: 2360
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:58 pm
Location: Oakland, Ca
Contact:

Post by Striations » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:51 am

What could you possibly be discussing that has to do with Luigi Russolo?
I am tempted to go through and read everything now but I dont have time / don't really want to anyways.

User avatar
socialdrift
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:17 am

Post by socialdrift » Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:54 am

i just think that he defines making / noise by its harmonic content - their pitch rhythm and intensity.
that's all i try to say...

:) !

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests