Re: [rumori] curve of sound innovation

From: Don Joyce (
Date: Wed Mar 14 2001 - 02:37:10 PST

Prove this statement dude.

I can't prove a negative. Simply give me a "brand new" sonic element in
music, or a procedure to make it, and I will tell you where and when it has
occured in music BEFORE now as a precedent in the history of music. This
ridiculous argument is all about musical precedent... what music might
consist of that has not been part of music before. I contend there are NO
sonic precedents left to be achieved by modern music.

>Ok. I am 19. Thank you Steev for redeeming my faith in 32 year olds. I
>haven't followed this thread very well because it seemed a bit
>self-agrandizing, and didn't want to defend my taste for catchy music here.
>I'm not sure if you're talking about pop music or mainstream music. The two
>are very different things. Or if you're just lumping all non-collage music
>Look at groups like Atari Teenage Riot, Autechre, Le Tigre, Add n to X,
>Outkast, or Magnetic Fields. Independent of their artistic merit, 1985 bands
>did not in anyway resemble these guys.
>I think this whole "curve of sound innovation" business is nonsense too. It
>seems a rather arbitrary line has been draw regarding the "evolution" of
>->> >>invention. Everything that CAN be music (categorically speaking) has
>->> >>reached our ears by now (it only took a few thousand years to exhaust
>->> >>sonic precedents for music within the range of human hearing!)
>Prove this statement dude.
>Are you accounting for new music and sound technologies?
>What about traditional music? Account for Astor Piazolla. Would you say that
>his music was regressive because it incorporated traditional instrumentation
>and lent from Argentine folk music? Or would you say that it's avant-garde
>because of the new form? What about Bartok, Shostakovich and Dvorak? All
>regressive I suppose?
>Are you just talking about "sonic" or musical forms, or popular music? I
>don't have any idea what's going on...
>>From: Steev Hise <>
>>Subject: Re: [rumori] curve of sound innovation
>>Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:45:10 -0800 (PST)
>>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?
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

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.