Electronic Music - It Has No Soul?

[Steve Ostrander]

There's a big difference between making sounds and making music.

[catmandu2]

There's a big difference between making sounds and making music.

This could be true pertaining to given traditions and dictates. Yet, can music be non-traditional?

Are there various forms and functions of music?

What is music?

[stevedenver]

Pshaw...

you know, George Barnyard (liked to play triangle in an old time band) .....Pygmalion/ My Fair Lady.....

[catmandu2]

This discussion seems to have abruptly ended. Here's a paper discussing many of the aspects one should consider on the topic; while the purview is well beyond e-music alone, it provides a context for understanding fundamentals and principles (where e-music has such great efficacy, etc.):

https://voices.no/index.php/voices/article/view/778/651

[John Flynn]

I'm a "Keep it Acoustic" person. I don't happen to like most electronic music. But each to one's own. All music except singing is created by some kind of device. The argument is just over the sophistication of the device.

I recall Sam Bush saying words to the effect that if it were not for modern sound reinforcement, the popularity of the mandolin would have died out decades ago. I can also say that at least electronic music tends to be in tune and on tempo, which is more than I can say for some acoustic jams I've been to.

Finally, no music in and of itself has "soul." Musicians have "soul" (or not). If the musician is good, his or her soul comes through the music to audience members who are open to it. That's true no matter how it's created. What will be fascinating is the question of if in the future, Artificial Intelligence can create music from scratch that speaks to human audiences.

[Folkmusician.com]

It's hard to tell what you are hearing within a recording now days. Sampling has come so far that many things we assume are acoustic, are actually samples. The engines powering some of this is amazing. The nuances and subtleties are there.

When you have various samples of the same note , all with different attacks and decays and ever so small variations, and this is combined with a highly expressive controller, certain acoustic instruments can be convincingly emulated. It does need to be done within the limitations of the samples though. Throw this in a mix and very few musicians will be able to tell it is not an actual acoustic instrument.

[catmandu2]

"The education of the ear is fifty years behind the education of the eye. We are still hostile to sounds that surprise us." - Boulez

("Personal taste and attention span can now be observed as only a small part of the full spectrum of mind/body engagement with sound." - Campbell, 1991)

[Dr H]

I'd really like to know how other acoustic players feel about this stuff today. I don't want to create any controversy here, but am I alone? Do I need to "get with the program" and take a more current music appreciation class?

I see this post went up a while ago, but the thread still looks live, so I'll drop in my 2¢.

First, as regards "soul", I believe that arises not from any one source, but from the interaction of multiple participants in the process of music. Any musical performance represents the final outcome (for that moment) of a contract between composer, performer, and listener -- and possibly to a lesser extent conductor, instrument maker, recording engineer, etc.

Second, my perspective might be a little different (or maybe not), because I'm a composer first, and a player second. As such, I see a distinction between 'music played with electronic instruments or enhancements' and 'electronic music.' The former can be pretty much anything -- Switched on Bach; Tomita; ELP; Eric Clapton playing electric guitar; Taylor Swift singing through a vocoder; etc. The second is music composed specifically for electronic media. That would be stuff like Shaeffer's Musique Concrete; Carlos's Sonic Seasonings (and the original parts of A Clockwork Orange; Ussachevsky's Columbia-Princeton tapes; Subotnik's Silver Apples of the Moon, and a host of others.

The main difference between these two forms is that they have been conceived from the start for different media. Bach often didn't specify instrumentation form may of his keyboard works. They were conceived for a human keyboardist, playing whatever happened to be handy -- harpsichord, clavichord, organ, portative organ -- or, eventually, piano or synthesizer. The music is what was important, not the particular instrument. Some stuff he did specify instrumentation for, but it was still the music that was foremost. A piece composed for baryton might or might not be idiomatically suited to being played by a group of recorders or on a harpsichord, but it could be transcribed to suit different instrumentation, and Bach did many such transcriptions himself. (As a composer, you want to get your stuff played, and a lot of times that means working with the instruments currently available, and not those you might have chosen yourself.)

This music has as much potential soul as the composer put into it. A skillful performer might add some soul of his/her own; a not-so-skillful performer might throw a wet blanket on the composer's passion -- but it will be there, nonetheless, and the actively participating listener will discover and enhance it as they will.

With electronic music, music is composed specifically for machine (in the form of electronic media), rather than human. The composer will still imbue the music with that ambiguous quality of soul, but the contract between the composer and the performer will be missing. Now the link is more directly between the composer and the listener. Some listeners find this uncomfortable -- even though they might not consciously realize why -- because it places a much greater responsibility on the listener. Listeners that try too hard to analyze-out the "composer's intent", as opposed to just experiencing the sounds and letting them carry the listener to their own conclusions, are quite likely to be disappointed. Because musical experience is cooperative operation, and not a didactic one.

It's not the composer saying "I tell you THIS. Are you clever enough to understand it"?

It's more like, "This means something to me, and I am sharing it with you. What does it mean to you?"

(Admittedly, some composers are more willing to acknowledge this, than others.)

In other words, music isn't something done to a listener; it's an experience which listener, performer, and composer share. The bottom line is, the amount of soul in a piece of music depends in large part on what YOU bring to the experience.

All that gobbledygook said, I would say that any piece of music -- acoustic, electronic, or whatever -- potentially has soul. Not necessary for every listener, and not the same amount for every listener, but it's there waiting for the right combination of factors to be discovered.

It's OK to not like a piece of music, so long as one doesn't use that as an excuse to cut off all future experience with a particular genre. You might not like some, or even most of a particular style, but there always that chance of that one piece coming along and grabbing you, and that makes sitting through the duds worthwhile.

To use myself as an example, I once hated bluegrass music. Now, I play banjo and mandolin, and have a shelf full of Earl Scruggs and Bill Monroe recordings. Go figure.

[MediumMando5722]

The only time I have a problem with electronic music is when a "performance" consists entirely of someone plugging in a flash drive and pressing the space bar. When the performer has a glowing apple rather than a face, it's certainly not live music.

That said, I like a lot of electronic based music, but not mindless EDM or the like.

[catmandu2]

I'd really like to know how other acoustic players feel about this stuff today. I don't want to create any controversy here, but am I alone? Do I need to "get with the program" and take a more current music appreciation class?

Considering the OP''s specific inquiry again (thanks H), I would say that - music is much more than only performance and entertainment, and a course in "appreciation" will only provide that context. The field of music therapy is where depth research in music and sonic exploration is happening (also where electronic music has great efficacy). A paper such as from the link I provided upthreads is a great place to start a basis of inquiry.

[Beanzy]

It is interesting to note in acoustic music how there are some artists who can perform whatever they want with minimal instrumentation and we're gripped. We'd listen to them sing the shopping list and enjoy the joy of the confectionary prices as they were recited and lament the purchase of the Brussels sprouts as they were rung up. For me this highlights how much of the listener is in the process. There are performers who we are drawn to and it's about their skill as a performer in allowing us to project a bond of empathy, we as listeners make it personal and that is a core part of what we need in this type of performance. There are instrumentalists who can achieve a similar effect and affect us with the mood and emotion of the piece. In other forms it's the composer reaching across, but I think it's a more difficult connection to make. It seems like shadow puppetry where it can work, with all the emotion, but there's a barrier to cross and a bigger ask of the audience. I think of it as similar to watching a really well done animation as against a live performance.

[catmandu2]

There are very many interesting considerations WRT the issue at hand. One particular article by Derrick De Kerckhove - "Oral versus Literate Listening" - discusses origin and evolution of fundamentally disparate orientations in listening (and thinking) and how these are given to various dispositions toward abstraction versus literacy, and so on. One interesting body of research De Kerckhove discusses is that of Walter Ong who posits a model he calls "the psychodynamics of orality," which basically breaks down features (of psyche development) into characteristic attitudes in listening. This material could help one understand why it is they may, or may not, receive and value "information" contained in a particular mode or form - particularly WRT abstraction, such as that being discussed here.

One of many interesting articles from an anthology titled "Music: Physician for Times to Come," which I highly recommend.

[Paul Cowham]

Interesting thread - I'm not a huge fan of purely electronic music but have some friends who are and I have had some great times listening and dancing to electronic music with them.

There is a great Manchester band called GoGo Penguin who are essentially an acoustic jazz trio that play music very much influenced by electronic music - no matter how much you may dislike electronic music, I hope you'll like this which wouldn't exist without electronic music.



from their website

[BrianWilliam]

That was cool Paul. I was especially impressed by the glitchy playing technique. I wonder how long that took to nail down.

[Dr H]

The only time I have a problem with electronic music is when a "performance" consists entirely of someone plugging in a flash drive and pressing the space bar. When the performer has a glowing apple rather than a face, it's certainly not live music.

That said, I like a lot of electronic based music, but not mindless EDM or the like.

I started doing electronic music back when magnetic tape was still the medium of choice. If an electronic piece was to be included on a program, I always had the tape player center-stage, and I always credited the person who started the tape as a performer. viz.:

"John Smith and Jane Doe, violins; Mstislav Rostropovich, cello; Joe Sixpack, tape recorder."

After all, somebody had to push the button.

[ombudsman]

For me this highlights how much of the listener is in the process. There are performers who we are drawn to and it's about their skill as a performer in allowing us to project a bond of empathy, we as listeners make it personal and that is a core part of what we need in this type of performance.

I think you're getting at the heart of the matter which is that cultural priming and expectations are everything in the way we hear music.

We have these romantic traditions where we associate certain sounds and styles with positive things like "authenticity". These aren't universal, but there are not that many sets of these values that are widely shared.

When you have them, they work for you on an emotional level in a way that seems like it's bigger than your opinion and should be obvious to other people. But of course, these are mental constructs that are not effective at all if you don't have them, and actually you might have opposite feelings about them if your perspective is different.

They're like tropes in movies. The horror movie fan like myself is completely engaged and isn't bothered by a cheesy plot twist, and may be genuinely tweaked by old circus imagery (or whatever), whereas someone else may find it stupid and predictable.

In the same way, the person that associates a solo acoustic performer and songwriter with a relaxing mood and a way to enjoy some storytelling and some familiar sounds may indeed enjoy hearing lyrics that are little more than a shopping list, or to be more fair, a narrative that speaks to rural or working class values and employs images, rhythms, and phrasing that are known to work in the style.

The authenticity, of course, is a subjective feeling that is based on the associations that the audience has. It doesn't mean the music itself is authentic or has "soul" or that other music doesn't have those things. And it certainly doesn't mean musical instruments have them. One persons' epitome of authenticity or soul, may be a void of new ideas or creative risk and a feast of low expectations and insultingly fake rural-isms to someone else.

[Dr H]

Electronic music = no soul
Bluegrass = too fast, nasal vocals
Old-time = all sounds the same, goes on too long
Blues = repetitious, full of "posers"
Folk = outdated, irrelevant, lotsa "kumbayah"
Country = bad rock w/pedal steel
Rock = teenage wasteland
Hip-Hop = no melody, even more "posers"
Classical = pretentious, un-involving
Celtic = inbred, exclusionist, mostly sounds the same
Jazz = obscure, self-indulgent
Polka = words fail me

Music that I play = tasteful, interesting, sparkling, original, inventive, involving, memorable

I just must have somethin' all those other musicians lack...

Best response I've seen.

[Johnspin]

If you enjoy watching robots dance...

[Pittsburgh Bill]

Not true! Not just anyone cand do it. It is a skill in it's self. I just don't want to do it as it doesn't appeal to me. But, either does chopping chords. Not wrong or right, just what provides you with enjoyment.

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm wanting to hear different perspectives. I've got a friend who has invested many thousands of dollars in all kinds of gizmos. He's got boxes with lights and buttons all over the place, plus a number of keyboards, (can't play keyboard) hundreds of software addons and plugins, and blah blah.

Well, maybe I'm just a dinosaur, and even though a lot of the sounds he creates with all that stuff do sound pretty cool; when I listen, I feel like I'm hearing Star Trek or Star Wars - and not the theme songs either. . . .

I'd really like to know how other acoustic players feel about this stuff today. I don't want to create any controversy here, but am I alone? Do I need to "get with the program" and take a more current music appreciation class?

I think this is pretty safe place to ask that question! Yes, you're a dinosaur.

And this is an argument neither of you will ever win. I'm solidly with you, thoug in fairness, it does take talent to program. But it's a different kind of talent. And people who grew up listening to synthetic music tend to think it's entertaining.

I used to play with a guy who was all gizmos - eBow, Pandora, volume pedal, all kinds of digital toys. Kind of an odd duck. Never smiled, rarely interacted with band members.

One day at band practice I was noodling between songs. He watched for a couple of minutes, then asked me what I was playing. I told him: a G major scale.

He said, "Show me."

I showed him. He tried it for about half a minute, then shrugged and went back to his Venusian swamp gas burbles and rabid giant zombie bat howls.

You're right. No manufactured music has any soul. (Or G major scales, apparently.)

[Charlieshafer]

Soul is in the composition and architecture of the performance, along with the nuance of the individual instruments. The instruments don't matter. A synthesizer is every bit as capable of hitting a blue note as an acoustic or electric guitar, with all the bends and slides. If you just heard a really fine piece of electronic music over the radio, you might think "this is great." If you saw the same performance in person, and just saw people standing at keyboards and other input devices, you might say, "this is weird." Visuals have a lot to do with it.

Equally confusing might be assuming all electronic music is techno-dance.trance hip hop pop. I think that might be "soulless" even if played on acoustic instruments. The instrument doesn't create soul, it's the musician. The tool is irrelevant.

[farmerjones]

I feel the same way as when this thread was new.

[Brian Harris]

I've heard some opinions that made me re-consider (but not listen to) electronic music:

1. The "classical" composers were always chasing new sounds. They would've likely latched onto this tech.

2. The laptop is the modern-day equivalent of the folk guitar... cheap, readily-accessible, gives musical voice to a generation.

I think these are compelling ideas. Not sure I agree or disagree but interesting to consider.

[JEStanek]

Submitted



Jamie

[Bertram Henze]

I understood the OP was adressing things like this: