The way I consider it there is an inherent problem in modern, but especially academic, electronic music. Essentially, it's a problem of sameyness between composers and within their own body of work. I feel that, in theory, though this should be nearly impossible when a composer is not constrained by an instrument. Using computers as a compositional tool allows almost infinite possibilities. We can control things at the microscopic level; sample any real world noise and create entirely new, unimaginable sounds. Hell, if we wanted we could re-create the entire works of Mozart by manipulating the sound of alarmed cat. But I still can't shake that feeling that the students of our university system, myself included, continue to produce music that is almost indistinguishable from that of their learned lecturers. Whereas their 'less enlightened' or 'mainstream' peers are walking all over them in terms of popularity and sonic invention. You can wrap it up in as much academic theory on spectromorphology as you want but if you're not innovating and nobody is listening what exactly is being achieved. And as a big fan of this kind of music I'm quite concerned. (More popular forms of electronic music have their own issues of course, mainly that of nostalgia, but that's for better writers than me to examine).
I believe the main problem is actually the infinite canvas itself. With so many possibilities is it any wonder that composers will stick close to what they know. But more importantly, these guys should just go play with some Lego or play Minecraft. Or, to reference my own wasted childhood, Nickelodeon 3D Movie Maker.
As you may be able to guess Nickelodeon 3D Movie Maker was a PC game that let you make little movies with 3D representations of Nickelodeon characters, some props and a limited number of pre-recorded catchphrases. And slime. You could make these characters perform simple movements and move them around simple pre-rendered backdrops. However, the fact that is was in 3D allowed so much more creative opportunity than similar games like The Simpsons Cartoon Studio (which I also spent many hours with). My favourite effect was the ability to grow, shrink, stretch and squash objects and characters. Playing with scale in this way was incredibly fun, but my proudest discovery involved one of the many props, a slab of raw meat. By severely squashing the meat I noticed that its colour and shape matched that of a pool of blood. Squashing it even further gave the impression that the gore pool was spreading. Lovely!
What did I achieve by doing this. In needlessly pompous terms, I had transcended the tools I was given. I had discovered a trick that the developers had never intended (especially for a kids game) and as a result I could make the kind of violent movies I wanted. I quickly moved on from re-enacting my favourite episodes of Ren & Stimpy to directing Tarantino-esque epics and surreal sports coverage (I think I used a hamburger as a basketball at one point). This all culminated in an attempt to make a shot-for-shot re-make of Star Wars. A project so epic I think the game ran out of memory before the end of the first scene. (This was back in the days of floppy discs, how's that for nostalgia!) These films were weird, fun and unique.
How does this relate to writing music, I hear you cry. Well I love music which is weird, fun and unique. As far as tying this to a manifesto for composition, I believe that innovation requires restriction. One has to limit both their materials and their tools. In the Nickelodeon game I had limited characters/props and limited 3D effects but I still tried (and sometimes failed) to fulfil ridiculously ambitious ideas. Basically what I'm getting at is that it's no good if for a composer to say she can use any sound/noise possible in her music as she'll already be swamped with options and would then be more likely to choose the most comfortable solution. Likewise, its no good for her to limit her sound source to, say, a dripping tap as she can then use any and every sexy plug-in available. Again, the temptation will be to use the tools that she feels most competant/comfortable with. This is not to say that all music composition should be approached in this way but I personally I think this is good stance to take when creative block hits.
This is never really an issue with instrumental performers as their material (say a guitar) and tools (their fingers and amps) are already limited, although there are plenty of musicians who love to nestle in their cosy comfort zones. Certainly the last 50 years of electronic music have been awash with invention and new discoveries but it feels like we are now entering a settling down period and its time for the electronic equivalent of Hendrix setting his guitar on fire or John Cage emptying his toolbox into his piano.
For those wanting a working example, for me the American duo Matmos epitomize this approach I'm suggesting. These guys relish the chance to limit themselves. Take A Chance To Cut Is A Chance To Cure for example. It has limited material - medical sounds including liposuction and LASIK eye surgery - and limited tools - mostly editing and relatively little processing. And guess what that album is very weird, loads of fun and rather unique. Or maybe try their Supreme Balloon album played entirely on synths of their own design.
A more experimental example, and one potentially closer to academia, is the glitch/hacking scene. These musicians take functional machinery and push it beyond its limits to a sometimes literal breaking point, harnessing the new sounds which spew forth. This may explain why groups like alva noto, Wolf Eyes and FennO'Berg are (relatively, I grant you) more well known than academic heavyweights such as Francis Dhomont and Jonty Harrison.
People have made amazing stuff with blocks of Lego and I made some odd animated videos. Childish exploration and creativity is extremely important. However, somehow I don't see a project in Minecraft getting put on a PhD composition course...
No comments:
Post a Comment