I enjoyed and basically agree with the following response to my post. I'd
like to expand on my point a bit anyway. The fact that musicians of the past
lacked computers and electronics does not meet that they were shackled to
foursquare meter and tonal scales by the limitations of their physiology. As
I'm sure most performing musicians are quite aware when they envy their most
stellar colleagues, a great musician has millisecond control of time and
cent control of pitch. Nothing has prevented musical instrument builders of
the past - whose efforts are among the finest achievements of human
culture - from exploiting microtonality of complex rhythmic structures by
purely mechanical means (Partch is an example of a direction that could have
been taken). No, just as human languages all involve words and syllables in
spite of the vastly wider range of possibilities afforded by the vocal
tract, there is apparently some deep structure underlying human music
production, a proto-grammar of meter and scale that can take a huge variety
of forms without obscuring the intelligibility afforded by this underlying
basis.

I have no philosophical bias in favor of or against tradition, or meter, or
electronics, or anything. I've worked hard all my life to become as
objective as possible in music (I can hear the fireworks starting up in
reponse to that one too...).

But I rather expect that any future genre of music with any degree of
popularity beyond its composers will have some form of, perhaps camouflaged,
meter and scale. If not, then some other, perhaps until now only latent,
proto-grammar will have been discovered. I might make a case that musique
concrete and its formal derivatives (such as various quirky musical radio
plays) are based on a "narrative" proto-grammar as opposed to the "dance"
proto-grammar that I suspect underlies most music.

To make my point blunter, I don't think people can grasp or reflect upon
their experiences without some proto-grammar.

-----Original Message-----
From: Job M. van Zuijlen 
To: Csound List 
Date: Saturday, June 19, 1999 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: re techno bashing


>I'm always amazed how little leeway some people allow themselves or
>others in music as opposed to other forms of art.  I've found that my
>music was often more welcome by visual artists and (modern) dancers than
>by those involved in music.  For those who would like to expand their
>horizon a little bit, I can recommend "Silence" by John Cage.  Listening
>to non-western music (other than what is presented to us under the
>terrible heading "World Music") may help too.  I found the Folkway
>record series very helpful at the time.
>
>The ear is more conservative than the eye, someone has remarked once;
>there is somehow a need to preserve the tradition, whether in rituals or
>in the concert hall of our time.  There is reluctance for change,
>because it will anger the gods or the audience.
>
>A composer of electro-acoustic or electronic music has the whole
>universe before him or her.  Other than a "traditional" composer, he/she
>does not have to worry about performers, if they can be found at all.
>For me this is one of the attractive aspects of creating music with
>electronic means.  I also like the combination with other art forms,
>such as film or dance.  In one project I composed music to accompany an
>exhibition of paintings of a friend of mine.  There are so many
>interesting possibilities that, frankly, a pro or contra techno
>discussion is kind of immaterial, but it may of course evoke some
>interesting thoughts.
>
>I will admit here and now that I entered the Cherry Coke competition
>last year, in which you were asked to create a techno composition using
>a special (timed) version of Rebirth.  I heard very late about it, but
>sent my contribution anyway (about 30 minutes before the deadline) and,
>I'm happy to report, I was selected as one of the 24 second prize
>winners.  For those interested, I'm listed as number 25 under Cherry
>Coke Contest Winners on URL:
>
> http://www.propellerheads.se/songs/rb1015songs/pack4.htm
>
>In other words, it doesn't hurt to try something different now and
>then.  You will be called eclectic and frowned upon in some academic
>circles, but who cares?
>
>Job van Zuijlen
>
>Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>> It is a historical fact that most genres of music in all cultures have an
>> identifiable, fairly regular meter, sometimes changing over time. It is
>> equally a historical fact that most genres of music in all cultures have
>> "scales" of repeated pitch-classes, usually no more than about 12. Surely
>> this means something. These facts are a very, very narrow selection from
the
>> possibilities.
>>