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

RE: a general question

Shut up and play yer fuckin' bouzouki
Hugs and kisses,
yer pal, Gary Lehmann

-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Chance [mailto:lrc8918@louisiana.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:47 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: a general question

scratch my last. i think that my usage of the term "song oriented" is
confusing.  nic's suggestion does the trick rather well.   wait! 3-d
n-space!  so, imagine a cube where (r = rhythmic quality)  (h = harmonic
quality) and (i = instrument factor). this last will indicate how much of
your input or output sounds like a musical instruments (guitar, flute, 
rather than noise (bombs, helicopters, spoken words, attacking star fleets,
ect.), with the higher rating showing greater inclination towards "musical"

(r = rhythmic quality)=1,2,3,4,5
(h = harmonic quality)=1,2,3,4,5
(i = instrument quality)=1,2,3,4,5

my latest project would be r=1, h=1, i=1
whereas my bouzouki project would be r=3, h=5, i=4
i say i=4 because though my bouzouki still sounded like some sort of
stringed instrument, you couldn't really tell it was a bouzouki.

i think that my next question will be "how many on the list are math 

----- Original Message -----
From: Nic Roozeboom
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: 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
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
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
> guitar and bouzouki work that was very "musical" or "song oriented".   
> sure this question has been brought up before, but the list changes all 
> 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
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