>From: "Michael Pelz-Sherman" 
>
>Sure it's worthwhile! My point is that in general, people tend to spend 
too
>much time worrying about timbre, to the detriment of musical "quality".

That may be true. I actually haven't heard enough of other people's 
computer music to have a general opinion like this.
 
>thought the person who posted the original message was getting 
discouraged
>about not being able to get the kinds of timbres he was looking for, 
and I
>was trying to encourage him to focus on the musical structure rather 
than
>worrying so much about timbre.

That's reasonable.

>There is a difference between "richness of possibility" and expressive
>power. To be expressive you need some kind of paradigmatic structure, 
which
>I find lacking in timbre but present in pitch.

I would rather say this:  To be expressive you need to be able to 
comprehensibly convey your findings in that "r.o.p." If "paradigmatic 
structures" are what makes the comprehension possible, then I guess 
you're right about that--but then I would assert that timbre is not 
without such structure, even if it is mostly unconscious and 
un-articulated.


>>>The problem with CSound, and with most electronic music, is that it
>>lacks
>>>the dynamic interaction between composer, performer, instrument, and
>>audience that gives traditional music
>>>its expressive power.
>>
>>"It's not a bug, it's a feature." [ chop]
>
>
>Yes, there is an element of "instant gratification" that is intensely
>satisfying. 

I was talking about compositional involvement, not instant 
gratification. I think I can tell the difference, thank you.

>I am quite familiar with this phenomenon. However, the end
>result tends not to hold up to repeated listening, because the deep
>structure of the music is either non-existent or incomprehensible.

I don't find this to be true at all. I can listen to the work I've done 
with the methods I described over and over. I should point out that many 
of the example adjustments I described might be termed STRUCTURAL. I'm 
not arguing against your assertion that structure is possibly the most 
important part of composition; I'm merely asserting that I believe it is 
possible to create comprehensible structures in time with timbre rather 
than with pitch.


>
>Well, common sense is pretty uncommon in life and in music. What I mean 
by
>it is the elusive quality of "musicality" that many people are able to
>recognize when they hear but is so difficult to articulate, just as the
>rules of "common sense" in everyday life can be. I think the electronic
>music pieces that succeed do so by being *musical* - a concept which 
for me
>at least transcends "style".
>

Yes, and which for me also transcends the division of frequency 
characteristics into pitch and timbre.

Regards,

PW

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com