>I call what you're talking about here the "curve of sound innovation." (as
>distinguished from musical innovation, which is quite probably endless.) The
>best illustration of what you're saying is by comparing pop music against
>itself in ten year intervals. If you compare music made in 1940 to 1950,
>there is quite a difference, which can be attributed to not only musical
>innovation and changes in culture, but to recording techniques and high tech
>Do so again: 1950 to 1960, and there is still an incredible curve of
>innovation and change--not just to the songs that are rendered, but also to
>the types of sounds that comprise them. And again, compare 1960 to 1970,
>which probably marks the most dramatic change in this respect, with
>distortion entering the mix, and advanced sound synthesis.
>1970 to 1980 was probably the last 10 year interval of major innovation in
>sound, although on the decline as recording fidelity and multi tracking was
>more or less mastered. 1980 to 1990, the music at each end begins to sound
>very similar. 1990 to 2000, I can barely tell the difference. I really think
>that we can expect it all to sound the same from now on.
>>From: Don Joyce <djATwebbnet.com>
>>Subject: RE: pho: "threshold" for copyright??
>>Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:30:13 -0800
>>"The infinity of opportunities between what has already been done is vast,
>>the rivers of precedent exceedingly narrow."
>>I wont say I can't say it better but I almost can't! I think it was
>>Rauschenberg, the painter (and a collagist) who said in the 50s that what
>>he was interested in was not things, but what was between things. No one
>>wants to think that the possibility for precedent is gone, but if you can
>>say the possibilities for precedent are dwindling, then you have pretty
>>much acknowledged that there IS an end to it. (dwindling towards what?).
>>I think the end of musical precedent has been reached, and some time ago at
>>that. Most of music just hasn't bothered to noticed because most of music
>>is not interersted in precedent anyway, but has always been about
>>rearranging the deck chairs. But in fact, it's over, Johnny.
>>What we are willing to call music is a vast but still finite range of sonic
>>invention. Everything that CAN be music (categorically speaking) has
>>reached our ears by now (it only took a few thousand years to exhaust all
>>sonic precedents for music within the range of human hearing!) and now we
>>will continue on filling out the gaps between these precedents as most
>>music has always done anyway. This will produce much great music as it
>>always has, but there will be no new precedents in music as a practice. The
>>avant guard end of music is now complete and done for. We can thank the
>>last hundred years in particular for finally exhausting the subject of
>>"new" in music. An utterly amazing proliferation of extreme boundary
>>exploration that suceeded in wiping out the very notion of musical
>>boundaries. There is now no new sound for music to have, nothing left
>>untried to achieve that, nowhere else to go in the direction of true
>> >>ALL possible music is now recombining existing forms, styles, and
>> >>and that is the future of ALL music from here on out.
>> >This I actually agree with in large part, though I think of it as
>> >expansive, not constraining. Music is now correctly perceived as a
>> >continuum of stylistic possibilities, rather than a discrete set of
>> >exclusive, locked boxes. And, of course, composition per se is (and will
>> >forever continue to be) continuingly important in the blending (rather
>> >than mere juxtaposition) of various elements into new combinations that
>> >represent new wholes in and of themselves. Collage is interesting, but
>> >certainly not the whole ball of wax. The umbrella is big enough for both
>> >- that was the whole point of breaking down the artifices.
>> >One other thing: There is (and probably always will be) a lot of
>> >unbroken ground yet to be covered! What characterized the 20th century
>> >was the breakdown of arbitrary constraints on elements and form -
>> >everything is fair game now. But what that did is simply widen the
>> >of resources and creative strategies to virtually anything at all. Land
>> >spreadin' out so far and wide - keep Manhattan, jus' gimme that
>> >country-side... ;-)
>> >What irony that simultaneously the commercial music market structure was
>> >going in precisely the opposite direction. It'll take some time after
>> >gates are re-opened for the enduring cultural effects of that travesty to
>> >completely wear off. However, don't underestimate the market pressure
>> >that escape - the untapped market awaits, and not too patiently.
>> >At 01:58 AM 03/10/2001 , Don Joyce wrote:
>> >>See below.
>> >>><<The recycling of existing music into new music will only grow from
>> >>>It is the forseeable future of advanced music since there is virtually
>> >>>nothing "original" possible in any other kind of "pure" music anymore.
>> >>>requires a long essay of observations to prove to you involving the
>> >>>history of music making, but it's finally true!) The only interesting
>> >>>future left to music, the only relatively unexplored direction for
>> >>>the only way to be "new," is in synthesis, recontextualizing, collage -
>> >>>recombining and remanipulation of what already exists in unimaginable
>> >>>Horse feathers!
>> >>>See, Don, you start to get me going and then say something unbelievably
>> >>>arrogant like this. LOOK at the incredible variety of great, ORIGINAL
>> >>>we've been blessed with over the past 50 years -- that YOU deem worthy
>> >>>recombination, by the way -- bake in all musical ethnicities and their
>> >>>potential, then "prove" to me that collage is the only way for music to
>> >>>advance in the foreseeable future.
>> >>>It'll take a long essay? Okay, I'll read it (if I made it through Grout
>> >>>can make it through anything). For better or worse, I have a hard time
>> >>>believing the message when I can't believe the messenger. And when you
>> >>>statements like the one above you're as guilty as any corporation of
>> >>>doctoring to advance your agenda.
>> >>The essay, called "The End Of Music," is not ready yet. It began as a
>> >>by Crosley Bendix (and he certainly can be accused of spin doctoring to
>> >>advance his agenda!) but personally, I soon began to see how actual his
>> >>fantasy is. The title remains for it's shock value. This is not the end
>> >>music, just the end of creating the "original" sounds music was always
>> >>capable of throughout its entire history up until, I would say, the 70s
>> >>so, when electronic sound generation had finally been added to almost
>> >>kinds of music.
>> >>Now you cannot concieve of ANY sound in music that has not already
>> >>there. - But never to tedium, that's why it's still not the actual end
>> >>music making, just the end of its ability to originate anything, any
>> >>sound, style, or concept any more. There is nothing left to do but
>> >>rearrange the musics we have. The catch phrase against truly original
>> >>might be, "been there, done that." This ranges from Cage's Silence, to
>> >>field recordings of natural sounds, to all the musical and non-musical
>> >>notes all instruments have now fully explored, to all possible
>> >>and unacceptable styles and genres of music, to every possible vocal
>> >>manipulation of the human voice acoustically and electronically, to
>> >>effects, to noise, to white noise - it's ALL music now. And beyond
>> >>electronic sound generation, there is...nothing new.
>> >>So now music goes on recombining and resynthesizing this now complete
>> >>of givens, but as an artist, you cannot present any music that could be
>> >>considered a new form of music. We always have been able to do this
>> >>throughout the history of music, most especially throughout and right up
>> >>until the end of the 20th Century, during which we succeeded in
>> >>all possible extremes of form, style, and sonic invention with no
>> >>boundaries as to whether it might or might not be "music." The 20th
>> >>Century's final exploration of what might be music actually succeeded in
>> >>exhausting the subject! This is no longer a subject of musical
>> >>investigation. Only recombining and rearranging what has already been
>> >>is now possible hereafter. No new precedent can be set, music can only
>> >>rearrange existing precedents.
>> >>I did not say collage is the only way for music to advance, I'm saying
>> >>ALL possible music is now recombining existing forms, styles, and
>> >>and that is the future of ALL music from here on out. Collage happens to
>> >>one kind that acknowledges this fact about itself in a more "advanced"
>> >>unequivical way. Collage was invented in the late 1800s, musical collage
>> >>via recorded media in the teens and 20s, it's not a new or "advanced"
>> >>in any way.
>> >>People's reaction to this "joke" concept seems to be immediately serious
>> >>(no one laughs like I do) and they want to debate the point, as if were
>> >>this concept true, it would be an insult and defamement of music or
>> >>creativity or something. Actually, this has been more or less the case
>> >>since the mid 50s, and we've had plenty of music we all like since then.
>> >>The fact is, we actually like music to sound familiar for the most part,
>> >>composed of elements familiar to us, and all mainstream musics have
>> >>been recombining the tried and true exclusively, so it's really not a
>> >>problem, except for whatever we want to think of as the music avant
>> >>who are out there thinking they are inventing some kind of music. It's
>> >>already been invented. So I'm keeping the title as indicating a fully
>> >>explored "end" to the human practice of original musical invention.
>> >>"Originality" will hereafter be considered, as it has been for some time
>> >>now, a matter of how creatively we steal from what exists, adding our
>> >>invention, our "personality," to whatever we steal of course, which is
>> >>really the subject of our music appreciation, not "originality."
>>>> >>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>> >>To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> >>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> >>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> >>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> >>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>>> >This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>> >To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> >To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> >request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> >To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> >"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at
[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.