Hello,
I noticed this thread last visit but didn’t have time to respond. Now I do.
The first thought that sprang to mind concerned your definition of theory. Whilst I’d agree with you in part, I’d also raise the chicken & egg issue (or perhaps it’s manuscript & music here). I choose to believe that music pre-dates scoring; that someone writing down music for the first time had a tune in mind. I understand the earliest musical notation found to date was scribbled about 2,500 BCE, that’s about the time Stonehenge was constructed and I imagine the musical construction was roughly comparable in its apparent complexity. We’ve had Pythagoras and dissatisfied monks and a few others fiddle about with ways of recording (notating) music since then, culminating with what we collectively refer to as score music and Western Musical Theory. You mention an interest in Eastern music too, about which I know little other than that King Sejong of the Joseon Dynasty systematized Korean music in the 15th century, and Karnatic (sp?) scales are a bit of a bugger to understand.
My point is that the theory and notation attempts to record a musical event/experience. An original or ‘creative’ event should not be confined by the recorder’s ability to register it, nor should the event be constructed according to musical dogma. I appreciate that a musician does not need to play music on an instrument to know what it will sound like, just as someone who has written a letter does not need to read the text aloud to comprehend the words. But the words come from a desire to convey an idea, not from textbooks on grammar and the OED (used because words are more precise, if perhaps less powerful, than music).
I agree that theory is useful, but I feel that unless someone is making their living from writing music, such as turning out jingles, then if they have a ‘block’ it’s probably because they’ve nothing worth saying at the time. Using predetermined formulae to arrive at an innovative result is unlikely to produce much of value. It’s the source of banality.
For me, creative music is about expression. It’s trying to capture the essence of a mood, in sound, so that when I listen to the sound the mood can be recalled. There is only one prime question: ‘How to make audible that which is heard or felt within?’ With this thought, the craft of modern composing begins: choosing the appropriate instrumentation or sound source, setting up the desired mix, etc. Conscious theory should not feature.
The resulting audio should be a reflection or insight to the mentality of the composer, so if my mood is interesting and complex then the music should portray this, and if I’m feeling uncomplicated then the music should be simple. The distinctiveness of my sound should reflect my general individuality, as its depth should suggest mine. It’s pleasing when others recognise a personal feeling/mood from my sound — perhaps because music can communicate more evocatively than vocabulary and it’s satisfying to know that another mind feels as I do — but it is not the motivation behind creating the music. Much of the promoted music I hear is blatantly commercial, written by business people, not artists. Listening to some of the lyrics on the songs currently ‘hot’ on TV and radio gives an idea of the mental state of the composer. Is it any wonder that such sentiments accompany such music?
Now a philosophical point. I also believe that absolutely nothing is absolute; one reason being that we are limited by our human form and so by our nature cannot comprehend all that is. We can, however, explore the extremities of our confines. Relating this to the topic in discussion, I find it understandable that most music can be easily recorded on a piece of paper. But the recording (score) remains an analysis of the mechanics of the audio experience, and should not be mistaken as the foundation of the creative process. That so many of us seem to adhere to the principles of modern notation should not be surprising considering the similarities of our life experiences in our various dominant global cultures. 4/4 is an accessible rhythm that can be easily twisted and combined with other signatures to create an interesting amalgam of beats. It also lends itself well to conveying the general air of aggression and posturing that is necessary for most folk in order for them to survive in societies based on acquisition. It’s also easy to dance to.
I find it surprising that you feel there has been no ‘original’ or ‘new’ musical produce since the late 90s, especially so as you’re posting on a site containing some material that I find fresh and genuine. Perhaps you have been immersed in ‘old-instrument’ music too deeply. Some of us might appreciate that Debussy and Beethoven produced quite different music yet both were genuine explorers of the sonic thrill. To others however, they might both be classed as composers of ‘classical’ music. It’s a matter of what we are familiar with I think. I’ll confess here that I’m often unable to deduce why one tune belongs in a separate category to another. Many ‘genres’ could be lumped together in my opinion, but it could be I’m just missing something. I think of only three categories or genres: music to dance to; music to think to; and drivel (just plain bad or sound imitating music) — of which I make all three. Everything else is a sub genre.
Could it be that, as others have suggested, the evolution of music brought about by electronics was fundamental. Samplers and synths have given folk the chance to create music that is ‘unmanuscriptable’. But that is by the by. The unprecedented use of rich textural sounds in composition changes (or revamps) tired methods (such as using a VCO instead of a bit of cat gut to play the same melody) — does this create a new genre?
I agree with others that tweaking is part of getting precisely what you want, but I guess some just want a sound that fulfils a role, and presets are good at that. I remember first encountering Cubase and the brush tool and discovering those scuttly D’nB/house-style beats all by myself: just like thousands of others did! The Steinberg lot (may their gods protect them) could be argued to be some of the most creative people in the making of modern music. Or, when I bought my first sampler, being able to move on from a drum kit of a crash helmet and a nylon deck chair played live. The manufacturers of instruments do play a role, just as they have done for years.
There’s other issues, such as the defining of ‘music’ as opposed to sound, that could be taken up but my glass is empty and I ought to be alert for work tomorrow, or later on as it happens to be.
I’ve just remembered that I intended to include something about that squat looking little Welsh fellow who sang the Vincero ditty on X-factor or some such (I saw a clip on TV recently, though I think he was famous a year or two ago). Many of the crowd and one judge at least had tears in their eyes by the end of his rendition. I’ll freely admit to a bit of bobbing of my Adams apple too. To me it was a genuine bit of art, delivered by a bloke who felt the mood he was conveying. The TV prog then aired a critic who scoffed at the performance, dismissing the singer as ‘not an opera singer’ as he hadn’t been trained properly. What an arse. That was an example of a theorist who had forgotten (or more likely never understood) that about which he theorised. All the same, the tune wasn’t original, it was learnt, yet it was art.
In summation, I suggest we listen less for a musical construction that we haven’t heard before, and listen more for music that sounds as if the composer is genuine, or had experienced a personal, rather than learnt, emotion.
*This reply was written whilst listening to your tracks — which, incidentally, I thought were well done and highly creative — and drinking Balvenie Double Wood, which is also well made!