All points noted, and anything I disagree with I still respect
(although, based on Joseph Blow's comment, he wouldn't make a very
constructive teacher). I have a lot of tone work to do still,
although at least in the "006" improvisation (that I think you speak
of), those notes that I have strong somewhat out of tune warbles on
are purposeful wrenching of the notes for effect. An ability to create
an even tone across the instrument is important even if that is not
the desired result, as is being able to find all possible ways to
manipulate that tone to varying degrees purposefully. However I think
a lot of people are so used to the idea of "all notes must be same"
that when they hear something that is manipulated for the sake of it,
their instinct sometimes is to jump out and claim foul-play(ing)
rather than let themselves just listen to the sound itself and get a
feel for that as a creation in itself. Because the context that people
play this instrument in is either strictly "classical" or strictly
"jazz" or strictly "blues", when something is played that confuses the
genre-senses and blends things, there can be an urge to apply certain
expectations of one genre to aspects of another; I personally don't
like necessarily improvising in genres. In a rock context, the tone is
about incredible distortion. In blues, bending notes. In classical, a
pure evenness. So what if a piece is composed that has elements of
all? A bach-inspired tone-wrenching exploration? Let yourself hear
things on their own outside of preconceived notions of genre and
"supposed-to's" before applying your developed genre-tonal bias. All
mentioned musical development ideas I will look into, and appreciate
the respectful well-intentioned criticism (David).
For David specifically, here is a more succinct theme-building
improvisation, this one you may prefer the experience of, let me know
what you think.
http://sammyasher.bandcamp.com/track/005
Sam
For a more succinct theme-building improvisation, this one you may
prefer the experience of, let me know what you think (its short),
http://sammyasher.bandcamp.com/track/005
Sam
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:20 AM, David Priestley ( for harp-L)
<dmharpman@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmharpman@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi
I think that the term "utterly Destroyed" overstates the case with
a bluntness that goes beyond brusque.
That said there is some tone balancing work that could be employed
to good effect.
Whilst I enjoyed the over all listen, I was at times left
wondering why? Though not everything needs a purpose.
If you are just doing this for yourself, as in a 'workout', then
what ever you want and what ever you do is your ball game.
There is no doubting that you can get about the instrument.
If you are doing this with the idea of taking the listener on a
journey you may do better to start with a reasonable simple and
strong theme from which you then move, extend, embellish and
eventually return. Keep in mind that more often than not folks put
music on to alter their mood, to kick back and relax, to lighten
their load. If the structure is so complicated right from the
get go, with constant streams of quick flourishes it will tend to
misplace the listening ear. By which I mean that all the the
flashy movement will hide the thematic statement and it may well
end up just getting the listener wound up and irritated.
You may like to take this idea on board.
That you try and develop the use of some of the ideas in the
abstract modern art moment of the late 19th and mid 20th century.
In particular the style known as 'pointillism' or to quote Wickky:
*Punctualism* (commonly also called "pointillism" or "point
music") is a style of musical composition prevalent in Europe
between 1949 and 1955 "whose structures are predominantly effected
from tone to tone, without superordinate formal conceptions coming
to bear" (Essl 1989, 93). In simpler terms: "music that consists
of separately formed particles—however complexly these may be
composed—[is called] *punctual* music, as opposed to linear, or
group-formed, or mass-formed music" (Stockhausen 1998, 452). This
was accomplished by assigning to each note in a composition values
drawn from scales of pitch
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_%28music%29>, duration
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_%28music%29>, dynamics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_%28music%29>, and attack
characteristics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulation_%28music%29>, resulting
in a "stronger individualizing of separate tones" (Frisius 1994).
Another important factor was maintaining discrete values in all
parameters of the music. Punctual dynamics, for example
mean that all dynamic degrees are fixed; one point will be
linked directly to another on the chosen scale, without any
intervening transition or gesture. Line-dynamics, on the other
hand, involve the transitions from one given amplitude to
another: crescendo, decrescendo and their combinations. This
second category can be defined as a dynamic glissando,
comparable to glissandi of pitch and of tempi (accelerando,
ritardando). (Boulez 1971, 60) end quote.
Personally I find that much of this sort of thing should be
done privately and not inflicted upon an audience. I also feel
that there is a lot of guff spouted in the name of art. That
said I am honestly trying to point you in directions that you
may be able to make good ground on. To the idea of pointillism
I would also add the concept of fractals, which you may find a
useful idea, as far as a search for structure with-in a mass
of points of sound.
You will need to play ranges of notes over and over to ensure
that they all have the same qualities about them. You have to
have an acoustic base line, i.e. a standard point of sound
from which you make an alteration, in order to make that point
of sound significant as opposed to regular. It's as though
your regular audio points take the place that silence would take.
I would make sure that you do your best to record such work
with a view to 3d/ surround sound reproduction. Now some would
say that to use surround sound and pitch filters to alter the
energy / dynamic and 3d placement in a mix is cheating. To
which I would only ask are you perusing art or indulging in
some playground competition.
Feel free to utterly disregard all that I've said, I try not
to take my self too seriously and when all is said and done
these are nothing more than musings, which are meant with a
good intent.
Wishing you ATB -yours David
On 11/09/2011 21:36, Joseph Blow wrote:
Well, since you asked: Re: #1 Some fantastically great stuff that is utterly destroyed by the presence of sour notes. Maybe you're not using the right tool for the job.
Best of luck...
To all you harmoni-folks out there, I'd really appreciate if you listened
through at least a few of these tracks and gave me some feedback... I believe for
these recordings I am mostly using a C Golden Melody (diatonic)...
http://sammyasher.bandcamp.com/album/crowell-improvisations-on-9-6-2011
Thanks for listening!
Sam
Sam Friedman
sammyasher.bandcamp.com <http://sammyasher.bandcamp.com>
-
D Priestley AKA Dr Midnight.
England's first harmonica Guru.
Please send some reply, so I know you got this E-mail.
Do feel free get in touch.
Harmonica lessons POA,(10 = 20% discount,& 20 = 25% discount).
I teach from: 51 Barkston Gdns, the basement flat& On-Line,
Email me or call me to book lessons or get more info.
E-mail=dmharpman@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmharpman@xxxxxxxxx>
Website=http://www.cognitionarts.com/
Phone=(44) 0207 373 0295