how to make your songs musically interesting (Page 3 of 7)

I'd just like to say something about the point about "humanizing" the chip sounds.
While I think adding to the interest of the sound can be helpful, and yes square just on and off is quite boring and i wouldn't recommend it, there is something to be said about working to the nature of the medium, which is innately digital. While it might not be everyone's goal, I think that part of what chipmusic needs to be successful is to work towards almost a perfect example of the medium, whatever that would be. And of course for different people what that means will be different.
Mostly I just wanted to say that maybe "humanizing" the sound isn't the best, or at least not the only way of making the sound more interesting and complex in the realm of chip music.

What I'm saying is, the decisions of the coder of the driver also partly influences the music written with it.  Do you see?  But when the coder IS the musician you have another layer into how the music is played back, beyond using the command set that is supplied in the editor.

I hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: accoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.

This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.

A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".

I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.

The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new cliches are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.

Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.

4mat wrote:

What I'm saying is, the decisions of the coder of the driver also partly influences the music written with it.  Do you see?  But when the coder IS the musician you have another layer into how the music is played back, beyond using the command set that is supplied in the editor.

Reminds me of one of my fav 'pusher quotes. I've flung this around before, but it's good, so I'll just do it again.

squarepusher wrote:

I hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: accoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.

This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.

A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".

I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.

The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new cliches are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.

Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.

That's one of the reasons why I'm so fond of experimenting with creating (soft)synths. ExploreExploreExplore.

[
lol, I guess he really wanted to drive the point home.