Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sound Effects
Partners in Rhyme came through on their offer of free sound effects! They were more timely about it than I am about posting, though; I received the email only a day after I sent them the link to my blog. So, thanks, Partners in Rhyme, for the hours of free sound effects!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Musical Expression in Electronic Music
I attended a new music concert tonight at NYU. The performers were Elizabeth McNutt, flute, Dr. Esther Lamneck, clarinet, and... computer?? I've improvised on flute to a fixed electronic score before, but I have never seen a live performance of instrumentalists playing composed music to the improvisations of a computer! I don't quite understand the computer programming, so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it. But I think the composers designed their computer programs to react to live sounds. And I was most impressed with the last piece, when that composer was on stage "playing" the computer.
It was a fascinating experience. The instrumentalists tonight were of course top-notch. It would have been just as enjoyable to listen to them play together. They varied their tone in extreme ways, yet still blended beautifully. Sometimes I couldn't tell if it was a flute or clarinet tone that I was hearing.
In addition to the live players, the computer contributed so much beyond what I thought was possible. I don't know to what extent the composers controlled the computer sounds, but the computerhad many roles. It filled in the gaps between the instruments' parts. It repeated the instruments' sounds, mixed them together, transposed them, varied them, or made new melodies from them. It was like a sentient participant in the piece.
What really moved me, though, was to see the last composer "play" the computer. My mental image of an electronic composer was not what I saw. I thought he would seem disconnected from the performance; he would merely be there to ensure the computer program does what it's supposed to. But instead, he played the computer as if he were playing another instrument. In his face was the concentration of a musician. His body movements gave away his musical intention: he anticipated entrances and showed phrase endings. He moved quickly and sharply for loud or sudden entrances, and more slowly or deliberately for subtler sounds. There weren't any traditional cadences or harmonic rhythm to clue me in to the form, so watching his body movements helped me understand where the music was going.
This may be a controversial post; is the concert I just saw really a Music concert? A few things I observed tonight pushed me closer to accepting new music as Music. Firstly, it is not all random sounds. Though there are fewer notes as people might recognize from Western classical music, there is a vocabulary of sounds written and used in a distinct way. Secondly, the composers wrote for particular instruments following an expanding tradition of music. It is not neo-Classical, and it is not meant to imitate a more "tonal" tradition. It is meant to expand on what we know as music, which in turn creates a new genre. Lastly, the physical motions that I mentioned above betray musical intention. The musicians on stage were trained in more conventional settings and acquired these movements from that education. They then apply that musicality to this new genre of music.
I have been struggling with the label of "Music" for electronic music, and seeing this concert gets me closer to accepting the label. My interaction with the live performers proved most important in determining a definition of Music.
It was a fascinating experience. The instrumentalists tonight were of course top-notch. It would have been just as enjoyable to listen to them play together. They varied their tone in extreme ways, yet still blended beautifully. Sometimes I couldn't tell if it was a flute or clarinet tone that I was hearing.
In addition to the live players, the computer contributed so much beyond what I thought was possible. I don't know to what extent the composers controlled the computer sounds, but the computerhad many roles. It filled in the gaps between the instruments' parts. It repeated the instruments' sounds, mixed them together, transposed them, varied them, or made new melodies from them. It was like a sentient participant in the piece.
What really moved me, though, was to see the last composer "play" the computer. My mental image of an electronic composer was not what I saw. I thought he would seem disconnected from the performance; he would merely be there to ensure the computer program does what it's supposed to. But instead, he played the computer as if he were playing another instrument. In his face was the concentration of a musician. His body movements gave away his musical intention: he anticipated entrances and showed phrase endings. He moved quickly and sharply for loud or sudden entrances, and more slowly or deliberately for subtler sounds. There weren't any traditional cadences or harmonic rhythm to clue me in to the form, so watching his body movements helped me understand where the music was going.
This may be a controversial post; is the concert I just saw really a Music concert? A few things I observed tonight pushed me closer to accepting new music as Music. Firstly, it is not all random sounds. Though there are fewer notes as people might recognize from Western classical music, there is a vocabulary of sounds written and used in a distinct way. Secondly, the composers wrote for particular instruments following an expanding tradition of music. It is not neo-Classical, and it is not meant to imitate a more "tonal" tradition. It is meant to expand on what we know as music, which in turn creates a new genre. Lastly, the physical motions that I mentioned above betray musical intention. The musicians on stage were trained in more conventional settings and acquired these movements from that education. They then apply that musicality to this new genre of music.
I have been struggling with the label of "Music" for electronic music, and seeing this concert gets me closer to accepting the label. My interaction with the live performers proved most important in determining a definition of Music.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sound Effects and Concrete Music
This week I'm working on a concrete music assignment. Concrete Music is the use of everyday sounds from the world around you for the creation of a collage, or a "sound sculpture," as Dr. Gilbert puts it. One can compose a wonderful work using the raw material of sound.
Concrete music is not appealing to everyone, and I'm sure not everyone would consider it music. There is not necessarily a time signature, though composers of concrete music probably have time in mind. Rhythmic figures may arise from repetition of certain sounds, or from the precise combination of sounds. There are no pitches or notes in the traditional sense. Many sounds we here are on a continuous spectrum of frequency. In other words, we don't live in a monotone world. But many things we hear we don't register as notes because they have not been clearly defined as definite pitches. Sirens, for example, are like one long glissando, up and down; but few people hear notes in a siren because there are not separate sounds to distinguish as different pitches.
Despite lack of time signature and pitches, concrete music is still musically appealing to some. A concrete music composer works to expand our definition of music by presenting a new collection of sounds to appeal to us like music does: there is structure; there is a beginning, a middle, and an end; there are sounds that may be foreign to music but make sense together.
I decided I wanted to use laughing sounds to create my composition. I did a Google search and found many websites with free downloadable sound effects. One of the most comprehensive websites was PartnersInRhyme.com. They also offer to give you a $50 library of sound effects if you mention them in your blog or on your website. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Concrete music is not appealing to everyone, and I'm sure not everyone would consider it music. There is not necessarily a time signature, though composers of concrete music probably have time in mind. Rhythmic figures may arise from repetition of certain sounds, or from the precise combination of sounds. There are no pitches or notes in the traditional sense. Many sounds we here are on a continuous spectrum of frequency. In other words, we don't live in a monotone world. But many things we hear we don't register as notes because they have not been clearly defined as definite pitches. Sirens, for example, are like one long glissando, up and down; but few people hear notes in a siren because there are not separate sounds to distinguish as different pitches.
Despite lack of time signature and pitches, concrete music is still musically appealing to some. A concrete music composer works to expand our definition of music by presenting a new collection of sounds to appeal to us like music does: there is structure; there is a beginning, a middle, and an end; there are sounds that may be foreign to music but make sense together.
I decided I wanted to use laughing sounds to create my composition. I did a Google search and found many websites with free downloadable sound effects. One of the most comprehensive websites was PartnersInRhyme.com. They also offer to give you a $50 library of sound effects if you mention them in your blog or on your website. I'll let you know how that turns out...
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Power of Photoshop
I am usually satisfied with my photos after I've taken them. That may be the result of growing up with film cameras; you can't do much to the picture after you get it developed. So in the years that I've been using digital cameras, I have done little more than upload my pictures to my computer. I view them using whatever photo-viewing program my computer came with. Sometimes I would crop photos because I wasn't totally satisfied with the angle or the composition, but that was the extent of my image editing.
For Tech Trends, though, I have to use Photoshop. We're not doing anything really complicated yet; most of the assignments are using pre-determined filters. But as I scroll through the available tools, I see what enormous capabilities Photoshop has! You don't have to use the pre-set functions. You can tweak every bit of color, brightness, change the viewpoint, create panoramas. The possibilities are endless.
So this is why some people can spend hours editing pictures! I see now how useful it can be. One can edit pictures to highlight certain attributes of one event. That will create an ideal digital representation of the event. This could be for posterity, for nostalgia, for whatever you want it to be.
Implications for teaching? For one thing, a teacher could process images from a concert, for the school's historical archives, for advocacy, or for recruitment. If the images were meant for a yearbook or a scrapbook, one may want to do little editing of the pictures. Perhaps just change brightness and color here and there to make the photographs clearer. But if the images were to be used in a campaign to recruit more students, one could use the various filters and other tools to make the pictures eye-catching. One could create very attractive posters using Photoshop.
Teachers could also consider using Photoshop in a classroom. I don't think I will use it in a music classroom; I think Photoshop is better suited for a visual arts class. I would consider using Photoshop in an electronic music class, as part of an audio/visual assignment. I can see high school students creating a movie and composing a soundtrack to go with it. But my dream job is a beginning band class. I can't see ever using Photoshop in that context. It will be useful to me to recruite and advocate for my program, but not for my students to use directly, unless they volunteer to help me edit photos outside of class.
For Tech Trends, though, I have to use Photoshop. We're not doing anything really complicated yet; most of the assignments are using pre-determined filters. But as I scroll through the available tools, I see what enormous capabilities Photoshop has! You don't have to use the pre-set functions. You can tweak every bit of color, brightness, change the viewpoint, create panoramas. The possibilities are endless.
So this is why some people can spend hours editing pictures! I see now how useful it can be. One can edit pictures to highlight certain attributes of one event. That will create an ideal digital representation of the event. This could be for posterity, for nostalgia, for whatever you want it to be.
Implications for teaching? For one thing, a teacher could process images from a concert, for the school's historical archives, for advocacy, or for recruitment. If the images were meant for a yearbook or a scrapbook, one may want to do little editing of the pictures. Perhaps just change brightness and color here and there to make the photographs clearer. But if the images were to be used in a campaign to recruit more students, one could use the various filters and other tools to make the pictures eye-catching. One could create very attractive posters using Photoshop.
Teachers could also consider using Photoshop in a classroom. I don't think I will use it in a music classroom; I think Photoshop is better suited for a visual arts class. I would consider using Photoshop in an electronic music class, as part of an audio/visual assignment. I can see high school students creating a movie and composing a soundtrack to go with it. But my dream job is a beginning band class. I can't see ever using Photoshop in that context. It will be useful to me to recruite and advocate for my program, but not for my students to use directly, unless they volunteer to help me edit photos outside of class.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Live Performance vs. Recorded Music
Recently I was reading my weekly assignment for a class, and came across a reference to Glenn Gould renouncing live performance. I don't know much about Glenn Gould, and couldn't believe a musician would actually give up live performing and perform only in a recording studio, so I researched him a bit. Apparently this is true; in 1964 Gould gave his last live performance, Since then he has dedicated himself to recordings and broadcasts for radio and television.
This brings me to my dilemma with his decision: isn't a main characteristic of music the live interaction between performer and listener? My favorite part of performing is playing with other people in an ensemble, but a very close second is performing for other people. The presence of an audience is one of the main factors in performance. Of course there is an audience for recorded music; the listener to a stereo, or an mp3 player, or a radio broadcast. But that listener is not getting as authentic a performance as she would if she were present in a concert hall. She will not observe the performer's movements, a key to his expression. She will not witness firsthand the judgments and decisions made during the performance and the interactions between players on stage.
Another disadvantage to recorded music is the quality of sound. The size and shape of a concert hall affect the sounds produced, and often enhance a performance. A member of a live audience will notice and appreciate variations in sound from their particular spot in the hall. The bassoon may sound like it is right next to her, or she may hear a very bright string section. In a recording, the best technology can only approximate the sound of live performance. The recording engineers add reverb to more closely imitate the concert hall. Unfortunately the microphones do not always pick up the lasting harmonics, echoes, and vibrations one hears and feels in live performance. And the quality of the listener's speakers will greatly affect the listening experience. The recorded performance is only as good as the technology used to record and play it.
The one reason I can concur with Gould is the advantage of editing. In a recording studio, the performer has supreme control over most musical aspects (except those I mentioned above). Gould feels live performance is like a competitive sporting event. There is too much risk and stress to give a really musical performance. In a studio he is free to fix mistakes and splice takes as necessary. This is a great tool for musicians, but I don't think it leads to the conclusion that recorded music is the ideal format for performances. Recordings preserve music as history for us, like an audio archive. But music is temporal; the performer does things on stage emotionally and musically that cannot be reproduced in a studio, and the audience should experience these firsthand.
I understand Gould's point of view, but I don't agree with it. I will make recordings to preserve my own musical history, and continue to listen to others' recordings for research, for education, and for inspiration. But I believe the most authentic musical experience is live performance.
This brings me to my dilemma with his decision: isn't a main characteristic of music the live interaction between performer and listener? My favorite part of performing is playing with other people in an ensemble, but a very close second is performing for other people. The presence of an audience is one of the main factors in performance. Of course there is an audience for recorded music; the listener to a stereo, or an mp3 player, or a radio broadcast. But that listener is not getting as authentic a performance as she would if she were present in a concert hall. She will not observe the performer's movements, a key to his expression. She will not witness firsthand the judgments and decisions made during the performance and the interactions between players on stage.
Another disadvantage to recorded music is the quality of sound. The size and shape of a concert hall affect the sounds produced, and often enhance a performance. A member of a live audience will notice and appreciate variations in sound from their particular spot in the hall. The bassoon may sound like it is right next to her, or she may hear a very bright string section. In a recording, the best technology can only approximate the sound of live performance. The recording engineers add reverb to more closely imitate the concert hall. Unfortunately the microphones do not always pick up the lasting harmonics, echoes, and vibrations one hears and feels in live performance. And the quality of the listener's speakers will greatly affect the listening experience. The recorded performance is only as good as the technology used to record and play it.
The one reason I can concur with Gould is the advantage of editing. In a recording studio, the performer has supreme control over most musical aspects (except those I mentioned above). Gould feels live performance is like a competitive sporting event. There is too much risk and stress to give a really musical performance. In a studio he is free to fix mistakes and splice takes as necessary. This is a great tool for musicians, but I don't think it leads to the conclusion that recorded music is the ideal format for performances. Recordings preserve music as history for us, like an audio archive. But music is temporal; the performer does things on stage emotionally and musically that cannot be reproduced in a studio, and the audience should experience these firsthand.
I understand Gould's point of view, but I don't agree with it. I will make recordings to preserve my own musical history, and continue to listen to others' recordings for research, for education, and for inspiration. But I believe the most authentic musical experience is live performance.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Initial Thoughts
Using the internet as a means of expression is a new concept for me. Until now I used it strictly for e-mail, reading news, and wasting time (e.g. Facebook). I have recently discovered, though, that this medium is valuable not only for social and personal functions.
One mind-boggling idea is that the internet is an instrument, and your computer the performance venue. As I am learning how to embed audio files in websites, I also discover that because of the variety of available monitors, modem speeds, and file sizes, my website will appear differently to different users. This can be interpreted as viewing different performances of the same material.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say your computer is a musician. The creator of the website controls the raw material to the best of her ability. One can only provide the instructions up to a point. The actual display of web material is mostly left up to the viewer's computer and internet connection. It's like a composer-performer relationship; composers write as much as they can into the music, but the performer brings the music to the audience. That performance involves much more thinking and acting in the performance, though; a computer will not respond to the music in relation to years and years of performance experience or in relation to the greater practice of music. But it is an interesting new perspective for me to think about "performances" of web material.
So for those who think "Technological Trends in Music Education" is going to be all about learning MIDI and how to use Finale, consider this your warning: you're actually joining an ensemble.
One mind-boggling idea is that the internet is an instrument, and your computer the performance venue. As I am learning how to embed audio files in websites, I also discover that because of the variety of available monitors, modem speeds, and file sizes, my website will appear differently to different users. This can be interpreted as viewing different performances of the same material.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say your computer is a musician. The creator of the website controls the raw material to the best of her ability. One can only provide the instructions up to a point. The actual display of web material is mostly left up to the viewer's computer and internet connection. It's like a composer-performer relationship; composers write as much as they can into the music, but the performer brings the music to the audience. That performance involves much more thinking and acting in the performance, though; a computer will not respond to the music in relation to years and years of performance experience or in relation to the greater practice of music. But it is an interesting new perspective for me to think about "performances" of web material.
So for those who think "Technological Trends in Music Education" is going to be all about learning MIDI and how to use Finale, consider this your warning: you're actually joining an ensemble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)