| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
heyitsthatguy 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094
|
 Posted: October 27 2007 at 21:51 |
 rileydog22 wrote:
Every piece Can recorded (at least through Future Days) was entirely improvised and then edited to reasonable lengths and overdubbed with solos. I'd say that they did a pretty damn good job.
|
wow, did not know that, I'll say  I like Supersilent from time to time and my understanding is that their recordings are entirely improvised. Not insane about them though
|
|
|
 |
FruMp
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 16 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 322
|
Posted: October 28 2007 at 04:09 |
Thandrus wrote:
Hi guys, I was just thinking about albums made by tape looping, electronic manipulations and other "non-instrumental" sources... And I got the feeling that quite bit of it is made in whatever-it-will-be mode... I mean they just record not knowing how it will sound... Complete improvisation, to put it short.
So my question is: how we could differ in this kind of musicians who is bad and who is good?
|
Being an audio engineering student with a love of experimentation I know exactly what you're talking about. If you need examples of bands that do it well though I have 2 words for you - Kraut. Rock.
|
|
|
|
misterkeyboard
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
Posted: October 28 2007 at 04:53 |
clarke2001 wrote:
Thandrus wrote:
Good opinions, guys, but I meand a different kind of
improvisation.... Not an Improv like King Crimson, Porcupine Tree and
others are doing.
To express myself better, just an example: Imagine that Maurizio
Bianchi is making His n-th album... He takes tapes, makes loops,
collects some noises and then records it. Not to say it's easy but many
can do the same without training 30 years to become
a virtuoso. So if many can do it, and are actually doing it,
so why we see M.B. as a legend and do not know or rate high other
such manipulators? |
To say it in different words: electronic music could be made by blind,
deaf, one-handed granny. And that's true. But would it be good as
electronic music made by an experienced artist? I don't think so. It could be, but there's much less chance.
Thandrus, let us not fool ourselves: those electronic/avangarde
composers who have no virtuoso skills at all and who are only able to
make same tape loops and blips and burps...well..even the most
notorious charlatan who is into that kind of business (unless is a
complete idiot) will very soon learn a few things...it's not
only "oh, let's see what will happen if I press this button" because
people learn about waveforms, filters, modulations and many other
things...and very soon they will know that machine will start to hiss
with resonance.
Any unexperienced kid could make techno music on his computer nowadays.
Some of that music could be good if some of those kids are
gifted...they have an opportunity to uses 128 digital channels,
polyphonic sequnces, millions of samples...but if someone on that
equipment ignores all the opportunities and makes a single
monophonic 8-step sequence in pentatonic scale with basic sawtooth
waveform, I will be sure that guy is influenced by Tangerine Dream.
So, experienced musician will be recognized with expereinced listener.
|
Keith Emerson did a lot with his synthesizers, filters, modulations and so on. He is definitely an experienced artist. He used it in ELPs music though, not as electronic/techno music.
|
|
www.lifeonhold.se
|
|
superprog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1354
|
Posted: October 28 2007 at 05:07 |
|
hmmm in the case of Nurse With Wound and MB their earliest works were very improvised / on-the-spot simply bec they HAD to be esp in the case of NWW; ppl w ideas and desire to make music / sounds but w/o the usual technique and skill or even eqipment.
But later on esp in NWW's case the stuff he put out later was def not improvised in any sense, the man had learnt how to use the mixing desk as his instrument to get the sounds and feel he wanted. just bec it doesnt sound melodic or structured does it always mean its improv?
|
|
mrcozdude
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2007
Location: Devon,UK.
Status: Offline
Points: 2078
|
Posted: October 28 2007 at 05:19 |
i think its essential in creativity.
I heard pink floyd went in the studio one at a time and just played whatever and made it an album,any know if its true and what album?
|
|
|
|
Thandrus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 05 2007
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 402
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 08:45 |
superprog wrote:
Just bec it doesnt sound melodic or structured does it always mean its improv? |
70% - it does, 30% - it doesn't.
And thanks to Clarke2001... very interesting point. 
|
|
jmcdaniel_ee
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 25 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 141
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 10:20 |
I think some groups think improvising is profound in and of itself, but I see what you seem to be getting at: you have to make it worth listening to. For instance, I'm a huge Mars Volta fan, but I saw them on tour and they improvised for at least 40 minutes at the beginning of their set. It was pretty terrible: the band just played the same rhythm at the same dynamic level and guys would solo over it. It never changed. Terribly boring.
That being said, I love the early Miles Davis electric period, and a lot of improvised King Crimson, Can etc. I think the difference is that some groups approach improvisation as trying to get somewhere or cause something to happen. Others just approach it as a vehicle for soloing, which I think is terribly boring. It doesn't matter how good someone is at playing their instrument--if the entire band doesn't cause the music to change like a living, breathing organism, then it seems like a big waste of time.
Any group of musicians can get together and start improvising. Most don't call it a finished product. When some do, they seem profound simply because they've made improvisation into a finished product. If it's stale, or if it's well-done, most mainstream music listeners can't tell the difference. Some who are trying to expand their listening ability find it all profound. I would say that once you're familiar enough with it, you can spot the well-done from the stale.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 30 2007 at 16:09 |
mrcozdude wrote:
i think its essential in creativity.
I heard pink floyd went in the studio one at a time and just played whatever and made it an album,any know if its true and what album? |
I wouldn't be surprised if they experimented with that approach - but don't remember reading it anywhere. Waters was far too disciplined to let that kind of chaos rule - listen to the tight architectural structuring of early Floyd's music - especially the improvised sounding stuff. Any improv happened within a tightly defined framework.
I know that Fifty Foot Hose did something similar in their earlier incarnation in 1966 - as Ethix, the band went into different rooms in Cork's mother's house and recorded stuff for 3 minutes or so.
The end result was released as a single called "Bad Trip", which had no speed indication on it. It was actually cut at 33rpm, which would be its' "correct" speed - but the band actually intended that it could be played back at 33 or 45rpm.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Studio Improvisation" artists... bad/good?
