Page 1 of 2
#1
Is there anything more ridiculous in the world than twenty men slaving to increase the
plaintive meeowing of violins? This plain talk will make all music maniacs jump in
their seats, which will stir up a bit the somnolent atmosphere of concert halls.

Shall we visit one of them together? Let’s go inside one of these hospitals for anemic
sounds. See, the first bar is dripping with boredom stemming from familiarity, and
gives you a foretaste of the boredom that will drip from the next bar. In this fashion
we sip from bar to bar two or three sorts of boredom and keep waiting for the extraordinary sensation that will never materialize. Meanwhile we witness the brewing of a heartrending mixture composed of the monotony of the sensations and the stupid and religious swooning of the audience, drunk on experiencing for the thousandth time, with almost Buddhist patience, with elegant and fashionable ecstasy.
#2
1 - We must enlarge and enrich more and more the domain of musical sounds.
Our sensibility requires it. In fact it can be noticed that all contemporary composers of
genius tend to stress the most complex dissonances. Moving away from pure sound, they
nearly reach noise-sound. This need and this tendency can be totally realized only through
the joining and substituting of noises to and for musical sounds.

2 - We must replace the limited variety of timbres of orchestral instruments by the
infinite variety of timbres of noises obtained through special mechanisms.

3 - The musician’s sensibility, once he is rid of facile, traditional rhythms, will find
in the domain of noises the means of development and renewal, an easy task, since each
noise offers us the union of the most diverse rhythms as well as its dominant one.

4 - Each noise possesses among its irregular vibrations a predominant basic pitch.
This will make it easy to obtain, while building instruments meant to produce this sound,
a very wide variety of pitches, half-pitches and quarter-pitches. This variety of pitches will
not deprive each noise of its characteristic timbre but, rather, increase its range.

5 - The technical difficulties presented by the construction of these instruments
are not grave. As soon as we will have found the mechanical principle which produces a
certain noise, we will be able to graduate its pitch according to the laws of acoustics. For
instance, if the instrument employs a rotating movement, we will speed it up or slow it
down. When not dealing with a rotating instrument we will increase or decrease the size
or the tension of the sound-making parts.

6 - This new orchestra will produce the most complex and newest sonic emotions,
not through a succession of imitative noises reproducing life, but rather through a fantastic
association of these varied sounds. For this reason, every instrument must make possible
the changing of pitches through a built-in, larger or smaller resonator or other extension

7 - The variety of noises is infinite. We certainly possess nowadays over a
thousand different machines, among whose thousand different noises we can distinguish.
With the endless multiplication of machinery, one day we will be able to
distinguish among ten, twenty or thirty thousand different noises. We
will not have to imitate these noises but rather to combine them according
to our artistic fantasy.

8 - We invite all the truly gifted and bold young musicians to analyze all noises
so as to understand their different composing rhythms, their main and their secondary
pitches. Comparing these noise sounds to other sounds they will realize how
the latter are more varied than the former. Thus the comprehension, the taste, and
the passion for noises will be developed. Our expanded sensibility will gain futurist
ears as it already has futurist eyes. In a few years, the engines of our industrial cities
will be skillfully tuned so that every factory is turned into an intoxicating orchestra of
noises
#4
So.... what you're saying is someone should make an orchestra that does away with the traditional instruments of old and instead uses a bunch of wacky new instruments that make crazy noises (that can still be ultimately reduced to specific pitches)? I think that would be interesting. I guess you could argue that electronic music already does this with all the unusual synth sounds. Or maybe I completely misunderstood your post because your writing style is a bit unorthodox.
#5
^Electronic music already did it. Hence the
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#6
This reads like a manifesto.

Agreed about electronic music. But there lies beauty in the imperfect, look at pearls
#8
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
Is like a manifesto about the future or something.


Quote by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
manifesto ... a written statement that describes the policies, goals, and opinions of a person or group


Post 1 was opinion, post 2 was a policy with goals, and all of it was written as a statement. QED by definition;D
#9
^Great. More for me to deal with.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#10
I was agreeing with you. It is literally a manifesto about the future. It's like if there were a person or group that was really into the future wrote a long diatribe about what they thought about that future. This would be like the manifesto of that person or group. We need to think of a name for them though.
#11
Yeah, maybe like...

The "later daters". Nah.

The "tomorrow-ers". Dumb.

If ONLY there was some name for a collective like that. I guess we'll never know.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#12
@JP: enjoy ^^;
@JRF: oh, I misinterpreted, haha. Future Music Revolutionaries? FeMuR? A Music Revolution Is Coming Around?
#13
^There's totally a name, we just don't want to say it.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#15
And I don't mind saying the name I was just being an asshole. OP is a futurist manifesto by Luigi Russolo called The Art of Noises. Interesting thing is it was written in the early part of the twentieth century before electronic music existed. It's also been over a hundred years and most people are still dealing with the same boring parameters of music Russolo was arguing against.
#16
Yeah and now we got OP passing that shit off as original.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#17
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
And I don't mind saying the name I was just being an asshole. OP is a futurist manifesto by Luigi Russolo called The Art of Noises. Interesting thing is it was written in the early part of the twentieth century before electronic music existed. It's also been over a hundred years and most people are still dealing with the same boring parameters of music Russolo was arguing against.


There is nothing boring about music, to me.
#18
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
. It's also been over a hundred years and most people are still dealing with the same boring parameters of music Russolo was arguing against.
Are they?

Technology has constantly expanded the range of sounds and noises that artists have been able to create music. The electric guitar, distortion and the various effects that came with it expanded the types of sounds available to the musician, is an early example that many now will look at as "old and traditional" but the desire for new and different sounds is what drove the development of the plethora of effects pedals.

Of course technology didn't stop there, sampling natural and mechanical noises has been used by mainstream artists for over fifty years. Synthesizers, midi, and computers have been used since the eighties.

All those examples have been continually developed and improved over time. The plethora of available sounds these technologies allow are endless and readily embraced by most mainstream popular musician's of the day and becoming more prevalent as time goes on.

Of course most musician's wouldn't be militant enough to limit themselves by closing off the idea of using traditional concert instruments either, there is no battle lines to be drawn. Everything is fair game and as soon as you rule something out, whether it is new or old you limit the range of sound available to you.
Si
#19
Yes, by and large people in the west make western tonal music. There are very few people who work rigorously outside of it. In some niche parts of dance music there are people making popular music with noise as its source material, but I can't think of many places at all.

Whether the electric guitar really represents a meaningful divergence from classical instrumentation or is merely a continuation of it with a kind of (although not very rigorous) negative relationship towards its roots is pretty debateable. I'd find it hard to call it an achievement on par with, say, the sampler.
#20
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
And I don't mind saying the name I was just being an asshole. OP is a futurist manifesto by Luigi Russolo called The Art of Noises. Interesting thing is it was written in the early part of the twentieth century before electronic music existed. It's also been over a hundred years and most people are still dealing with the same boring parameters of music Russolo was arguing against.


Thanks, JRF. I'd never heard of Russolo ... just grabbed his paper.

Would have been more helpful if the OP included a reference to it, as those points are the summary.

Not too impressed by wholesale "cut-and-paste"to create the OP, and no credit to whose ideas these are.

http://www.artype.de/Sammlung/pdf/russolo_noise.pdf
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jul 19, 2015,
#21
Quote by Jet Penguin
^There's totally a name, we just don't want to say it.


William
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#22
Society gets the music it deserves.

But it doesn't prevent anyone from making the music they like.

So what's the protest?

IMO the valid objection one can make is about commercial pressure. The purpose of the music business is to make money, and they know they can do that by producing music of mass appeal - which is never very adventurous, because most people (it seems) don't want to listen to adventurous music. They want comforting familiarity, mostly; and they don't want to have spend time and effort struggling to understand "difficult" music; life is too busy and short (they seem to think).
The recording industry has popularised the notion that music is something we can have on as background to our lives any time we want (either free or cheap) - no need to have to pay (or travel) to see musicians perform - so most of it is bound to resemble wallpaper more than art.
That would be fine - people can listen to (and buy) music we might think is crap if they like - if the media didn't also conspire in delivering that stuff, and effectively preventing more adventurous stuff from being heard; stuff that a lot more people might like if they got the chance to hear it. IOW, the media is a gatekeeper, keeping a kind of dead hand on the culture.

This is where the internet ought to - and does to some extent - offer a real alternative. As music fans, we're all free to abandon mass media and search online for something with more depth and content. Or make and upload our own of course.

We're no longer prisoners of the symphony concert culture that Russolo was raging against (the dead hand of DWEM) - and nor are we prisoners any more of the recording industry and associated media that followed (which liberated to some degree, but ended up as just another circus).
#23
1913 ... that's when that paper was written. Russolo was a painter, expressing his views as a non-musician, and his boredom of the music at that time.

He's expressing his wish for new sounds that still are mostly capable of pitch, combined into chords (he didn't like the absence of chords in the music he heard at that time). He didn't like the rhythms.

A lot has changed since them. Samplers and technology for sound design speaks to all he was longing for then. The harmonics involved can be filtered, (re-)generated etc etc (i.e. the timbre) for whatever sound you want (even impact sounds can be altered through EQ ... and stick them through a suitable digital chain and they evolve). Pitch shift and time stretch can turn a "machine" into an instrument of multiple fundamental pitches.

Rhythm has been far more explored through all manner of styles compared to back then.
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jul 19, 2015,
#24
Quote by jongtr
Society gets the music it deserves.

But it doesn't prevent anyone from making the music they like.

So what's the protest?

IMO the valid objection one can make is about commercial pressure. The purpose of the music business is to make money, and they know they can do that by producing music of mass appeal - which is never very adventurous, because most people (it seems) don't want to listen to adventurous music. They want comforting familiarity, mostly; and they don't want to have spend time and effort struggling to understand "difficult" music; life is too busy and short (they seem to think).
The recording industry has popularised the notion that music is something we can have on as background to our lives any time we want (either free or cheap) - no need to have to pay (or travel) to see musicians perform - so most of it is bound to resemble wallpaper more than art.
That would be fine - people can listen to (and buy) music we might think is crap if they like - if the media didn't also conspire in delivering that stuff, and effectively preventing more adventurous stuff from being heard; stuff that a lot more people might like if they got the chance to hear it. IOW, the media is a gatekeeper, keeping a kind of dead hand on the culture.

This is where the internet ought to - and does to some extent - offer a real alternative. As music fans, we're all free to abandon mass media and search online for something with more depth and content. Or make and upload our own of course.

We're no longer prisoners of the symphony concert culture that Russolo was raging against (the dead hand of DWEM) - and nor are we prisoners any more of the recording industry and associated media that followed (which liberated to some degree, but ended up as just another circus).


I agree ... apart from the comment about the mass appeal ... nothing wrong with that ... it means a load of people are enjoying that music. Fair enough.

Everything else ... +1

cheers, Jerry
#25
Let’s get out quickly, for I can’t repress much longer the intense desire to create a true musical reality finally by distributing big loud slaps right and left, stepping and pushing over violins and pianos, bassoons and moaning organs!

Quote by #luigi
won't get none of your CDs back
Last edited by captainsnazz at Jul 19, 2015,
#26
Quote by captainsnazz
and moaning organs!

jsut like me with ur mum last nite


I think this is cool and I am going to relate it to a concept that it probably shouldn't relate to but sod it

human evolution is lightyears behind today's tech. We're still engineered to satisfy like pre-old time thing. Still have variations in brain with women and men that don't apply anymore, and like other things like that

so we're still stupid with music because the tech has gone way beyond us so we just kind curl up in bad shaking listening to Beethoven over again because the future is scary
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#27
Quote by jerrykramskoy
I agree ... apart from the comment about the mass appeal ... nothing wrong with that ... it means a load of people are enjoying that music. Fair enough.
Well, I agree with that too! (sorry if it sounded like I didn't.)

I believe Duke Ellington once said "there's only two kinds of music: good and bad. I like both kinds."
He may not have gone on to say the second sentence, but he should have. If someone somewhere enjoys it, then it's good, for them at least. It's doing its job.
#28
Quote by jongtr
Well, I agree with that too! (sorry if it sounded like I didn't.)

I believe Duke Ellington once said "there's only two kinds of music: good and bad. I like both kinds."
He may not have gone on to say the second sentence, but he should have. If someone somewhere enjoys it, then it's good, for them at least. It's doing its job.


Amen!
#29
Quote by welvendagreat
Yes, by and large people in the west make western tonal music. There are very few people who work rigorously outside of it. In some niche parts of dance music there are people making popular music with noise as its source material, but I can't think of many places at all.

Whether the electric guitar really represents a meaningful divergence from classical instrumentation or is merely a continuation of it with a kind of (although not very rigorous) negative relationship towards its roots is pretty debateable. I'd find it hard to call it an achievement on par with, say, the sampler.

Is it based on traditional instrumentation - yes. But it's easy to look at it from 2015 as being old hat and dismiss it's significant divergence from traditional sounds achieved through the use of technology and electrical engineering.

Regardless, if you are upset that a 100+ year old movement hasn't overthrown western tonal music and frustrated that most people are still sticking to the "traditional", then maybe that says something about the merit of this movement you are so convinced is brilliant. Or maybe it says something about the merit of western tonal music to have endured over a hundred years of rocks being thrown at it yet still coming out unscathed and extremely popular - maybe it's good and shouldn't be thrown out. Or maybe it says nothing at all and none of it is any more than brief and tiny vibratory disturbances in a cosmic universe that simply doesn't care.

It is possible to keep an open mind to all things and embrace all artistic ideas. and possibilities.

The alternative seems to be to draw a line at random and stand on one side or the other. People that fight to resist change are met with eye rolls and groans. Why should people that fight to resist enduring ideas be treated any differently? Particularly in the arts which should always be ruled by an open mind.

But if you do decide to take a position and fight for the tried but by your own admission unsuccessful* idea, don't be surprised if people get tired of hearing you bang that same drum over and over much quicker than they ever get tired of western tonal music. And don't be surprised if those same people stop inviting you to parties for that very reason.

*unsuccessful in terms of catching on with a wide audience.
Si
#31
Back in the 17th century, they probably thought modes were dead and buried too...
#32

4 - Each noise possesses among its irregular vibrations a predominant basic pitch. This will make it easy to obtain, while building instruments meant to produce this sound, a very wide variety of pitches, half-pitches and quarter-pitches. This variety of pitches will
not deprive each noise of its characteristic timbre but, rather, increase its range.

5 - The technical difficulties presented by the construction of these instruments are not grave. As soon as we will have found the mechanical principle which produces a certain noise, we will be able to graduate its pitch according to the laws of acoustics. For instance, if the instrument employs a rotating movement, we will speed it up or slow it
down. When not dealing with a rotating instrument we will increase or decrease the size
or the tension of the sound-making parts
.


I think these two things are the least tenable facets of the manifesto. A painter should not speak as an expert in acoustic design until he actually is an expert in acoustic design.
#33
Why aren't they tenable? The first point is just talking about making noise instruments, which he and others did (by the way there's the impression that Russolo wasn't a composer but he very much was). And the second point sounds an awful lot like synthesis and physical modelling which took longer than he thought to get to but we're there and still making huge progress.
#34
^I think what Neo means is that all the "reinventing the wheel" in the world is no substitute for craft:

In the same way that Ornette Coleman could play sax like nobody's business, and wasn't just playing randomly when doing free jazz, it helps to understand the conventions and expectations of the 'whatever' so that you know what to do/avoid when pushing and breaking and jumping over those conventions.

Russolo (who was totally a composer) had a craft and a method down, he wasn't just "screw this I'ma make random crap". Even the people who make random music still have a logic and method to it, a more abstract one, but it's still there.

Or something like that.
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#35
Um, it was more like:

People can make models of sound sources, but they're not going to duplicate the original timbre using a replica, acoustic or electronic. Sure our technology has gotten better at simulating the original sources, but all it is is mere imitation. A piano is not so cheap as to be successfully emulated (yet. They're getting closer).

Perhaps the best mechanism currently available would be to record a sound and add effects to it as desired. Even so, there is no substitute for the original thing. (not to mention that noise does exist as a genre, but only certain individuals are drawn to it ;P )

I hope that makes some sense.
#36
Right but mimicking sounds isn't really in the spirit of what he's talking about. He's saying that because noises have a fundamental pitch among their irregular spectrum we can build instruments that still have controllable pitch, even though they're noise producers. And his methodology for altering pitch is right as well. Changing the speed of oscillation or the size of resonator or tension of a string would alter the pitch.

I mean, his thoughts are a bit rudimentary from our perspective but they're not really wrong.
Quote by Jet Penguin
^I think what Neo means is that all the "reinventing the wheel" in the world is no substitute for craft:

In the same way that Ornette Coleman could play sax like nobody's business, and wasn't just playing randomly when doing free jazz, it helps to understand the conventions and expectations of the 'whatever' so that you know what to do/avoid when pushing and breaking and jumping over those conventions.

Russolo (who was totally a composer) had a craft and a method down, he wasn't just "screw this I'ma make random crap". Even the people who make random music still have a logic and method to it, a more abstract one, but it's still there.

Or something like that.

How is any of this about what we're talking about lol
#37
^Look man my brain made some weird connection and I went with it

Not all my posts can be gold you know
"There are two styles of music. Good music and bad music." -Duke Ellington

"If you really think about it, the guitar is a pointless instrument." - Robert Fripp
#38
Quote by Jet Penguin
In the same way that Ornette Coleman could play sax like nobody's business, and wasn't just playing randomly when doing free jazz


Sometimes he played randomly though. Not always. But sometimes.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#40
Quote by jazz_rock_feel
One or two would be nice though


We'd settle for bronze even.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Page 1 of 2