Re: [rumori] curve of sound innovation

From: Steev Hise (
Date: Tue Mar 13 2001 - 12:45:10 PST

Tue, 13 Mar 2001 found Every Man writing:

>Or 40 from 1985 compared to top 40 from 2000
>It's significant, but not nearly as much as say:
>Top 40 from 1965 compared to 1980.

You have to compare equal time spans for it to be fair,
don't you think? But even if you do, just to devil's
advocate - this seems like a pretty subjective measure, and
tho i agree with you, I don't trust my own opinion to make
the judgement. It's a very generational attitude. If you ask
someone young, like someone now 18 or so, to compare 1995
with 2000, i suspect they might say there's a HUGE
difference. BEcause they lived the music and it mattered to
them. But the pop music that really mattered to me was
87-92 (I'm 32 years old) and then i pretty much stopped
paying attention to it (or tried), and even if i did hear it
it didnt MATTER to me as much, i had grown out of it. so i
can't speak to that later period.

I mean this all sounds like adults in 1958 saying Elvis was
just "noise"....

any 18-year old pop fans on this list want to speak up?


>It appears as though the curve of sound innovation has come
>to a slowing halt.
>I took a music seminar FIVE YEARS AGO where a classical
>music instructor told our class "all that can be done with natural
>sound progression, has already been done...the way we are teaching
>our students to innovate now is by combing their instruments with
>computer technology....we're encouraging them to SAMPLE their
>own work to create something new....without sampling, sound has
>come as far as it can go"
>Every Man, March 13, 2001
>Quotations left below since they are relavent, and encouraged to
>be read before replying.
>At 10:35 PM 3/12/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Don,
>> >
>> >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
>> >instrumentation advances.
>> >
>> >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 <>
>> >>To:
>> >>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
>> >>musical precedent.
>> >>
>> >>DJ
>> >>Negativland
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>ALL possible music is now recombining existing forms, styles, and
>> >>sounds,
>> >> >>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
>> >>smooth
>> >> >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
>> >>domain
>> >> >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
>> >>the
>> >> >gates are re-opened for the enduring cultural effects of that travesty to
>> >> >completely wear off. However, don't underestimate the market pressure
>> >>for
>> >> >that escape - the untapped market awaits, and not too patiently.
>> >> >
>> >> >Dan
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >At 01:58 AM 03/10/2001 , Don Joyce wrote:
>> >> >>See below.
>> >> >>DJ
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>><<The recycling of existing music into new music will only grow from
>> >>here.
>> >> >>>It is the forseeable future of advanced music since there is virtually
>> >> >>>nothing "original" possible in any other kind of "pure" music anymore.
>> >>(This
>> >> >>>requires a long essay of observations to prove to you involving the
>> >>entire
>> >> >>>history of music making, but it's finally true!) The only interesting
>> >> >>>future left to music, the only relatively unexplored direction for
>> >>sonics,
>> >> >>>the only way to be "new," is in synthesis, recontextualizing, collage -
>> >>the
>> >> >>>recombining and remanipulation of what already exists in unimaginable
>> >> >>>profusion.>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>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
>> >>music
>> >> >>>we've been blessed with over the past 50 years -- that YOU deem worthy
>> >>of
>> >> >>>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
>> >>I
>> >> >>>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
>> >>make
>> >> >>>statements like the one above you're as guilty as any corporation of
>> >>spin
>> >> >>>doctoring to advance your agenda.
>> >> >>Marv
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The essay, called "The End Of Music," is not ready yet. It began as a
>> >>joke
>> >> >>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
>> >>of
>> >> >>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
>> >>or
>> >> >>so, when electronic sound generation had finally been added to almost
>> >>all
>> >> >>kinds of music.
>> >> >>Now you cannot concieve of ANY sound in music that has not already
>> >>occured
>> >> >>there. - But never to tedium, that's why it's still not the actual end
>> >>of
>> >> >>music making, just the end of its ability to originate anything, any
>> >>"new"
>> >> >>sound, style, or concept any more. There is nothing left to do but
>> >> >>rearrange the musics we have. The catch phrase against truly original
>> >>sound
>> >> >>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
>> >>acceptable
>> >> >>and unacceptable styles and genres of music, to every possible vocal
>> >> >>manipulation of the human voice acoustically and electronically, to
>> >>sound
>> >> >>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
>> >>set
>> >> >>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
>> >>exploring
>> >> >>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
>> >>tried
>> >> >>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
>> >>that
>> >> >>ALL possible music is now recombining existing forms, styles, and
>> >>sounds,
>> >> >>and that is the future of ALL music from here on out. Collage happens to
>> >>be
>> >> >>one kind that acknowledges this fact about itself in a more "advanced"
>> >>and
>> >> >>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"
>> >>form
>> >> >>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
>> >>always
>> >> >>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
>> >>guard
>> >> >>who are out there thinking they are inventing some kind of music. It's
>> >>all
>> >> >>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
>> >>own
>> >> >>invention, our "personality," to whatever we steal of course, which is
>> >> >>really the subject of our music appreciation, not "originality."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>DJ
>> >> >>Negativland
>Every Man
>Press The Button, Midnight - 3 am Sundays
>WRUW, 91.1 FM, Cleveland, OH
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Steev Hise, Technical Thug
"Are you ready for some crazy wicked content!?"
                -announcer at virtual reality conference, 1998

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.