[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: a general question

Might want to decouple tonality and rhythmicity - a two-dimensional grid might work better. 1 through 5 for increasing degree of harmonic & tonal content, A through E for increasing degree of rhythm orientation (with C being rhythmic, E being song-oriented for example, if one can accept song-structure as an extension of rhythm-structure).
I would be in 4-5C territory most of the time.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg House
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: a general question

--- Lance Chance <lrc8918@louisiana.edu> wrote:
> whoever cares to reply.   you consider your loop work:
> 1 totally ambient, atonal, arrhythmic
> 2
> 3 a little of both, some of both (rhythmic, but atonal) (atonal, but
> rhythmic)
> 4
> 5 song oriented, rhythmic, tonal
> i'm just curious.   i do both.  right now i'm mainly working with some
> pretty freaky vocal stuff.  a "1" from above.  however, i have done lots of
> guitar and bouzouki work that was very "musical" or "song oriented".   i'm
> sure this question has been brought up before, but the list changes all of
> the time.  also: why do you do what you do and what do you think of the
> other side of the coin?

The problem is that there's a LOT of space between 3 and 5. Things that are
harmonic and rhythemic, and yet, not "song oriented". Most of my looping fits
somewhere in there. I don't plan out songs, it's freely improvised, yet, it's not
atonal, and it generally develops a rhythm, but it never ends up sounding like a
pop song, ABABCAB, or whatever.


Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now