a history purism as demonstrated by centuries of music technology, a thread. “Back in my day we didn’t just play those pianofortes all willy nilly, we stuck to dynamic stagnancy on the harpsichord for a real challenge.”

Music tech people are fucking weird. We have the world at our literal fingertips, when it comes to hardware and software devices capable of creating whatever sound we could possibly imagine, and at a fraction of the cost of what it did two decades ago. And yet we’re more divided than ever, plagued by consumerism, even when it’s become abundantly clear it’s possible to compose and record a professional and forward thinking album on something as commonplace as a smartphone or tablet.

time and time again as a sonic arts educator, without fail, i have been able to gently introduce non-musical art students to experimental noise, ambient, and other electroacoustic music through the topic of sound design. everyone can name a famous sound effect from a movie, show, or video game favorite. but historically speaking, much of these sounds have been created by a handful of individuals throughout the years that were either aware of or directly involved in experimental music themselves

from the strictly sonic perspective, this is one way of viewing techno vs. ambient, and even noise music theory from afar we’re all using the same tools, hardware software etc, what matters is the intent of the tools and the organization of their output.

i mentioned Barry Schrader last week in regards to his definition of electronic music that i hold near and dear to my heart: the idea that if your music requires any electrical transduction of signal, then that falls under definition umbrella i love this definition, it’s quite liberating to think that all that it takes to create signal flow is a bit of amplification, it very much paints the picture of a literal *electro**acoustic* music, a pick-up attached to your orchestral instrument opens up a whole newww wooooorld

interactive media and game design are some of the purest forms of presentation for ambient music. it allows music that is, by design, composed to be ignored in some regards, to blend in with a virtual space of the artist’s choice erik satie would’ve KILLED to be able to present furniture music in a salon he had 100% control over. he always complained that despite him insisting the audience ignore the performers and simply *exist* together in a room, people would always hush and crowd ensemble members.

on more than one occasion i have had to tell students not to put their teachers on some holy untouchable pedestal, especially when seeking out college programs or internships with “famous” artists as faculty or facilitators. as i’ve mentioned several times before, a great artist doesn’t make a great teacher, but even from the pragmatic, career-focused perspective, an artist of one generation cannot tell younger artists how to “make it” professionally i.e. pay your bills off your art

the pedagogical argument that we should be approaching electroacoustic vs. pop electronic music composition differently beyond strictly the immediate aesthetic level is an outdated and often racialized argument. barry schrader defines electronic music as anything that requires electronic transduction, something as simple as amplification or speaker reinforcement.

the ability to not only improvise but improvise *collaboratively* is a means of demonstrating emotional intelligence through sonic expression your ability to read your partner’s next move during a set is on par with holding your own and articulating yourself in conversation, in other word’s it’s essential

just because you’re a great artist does not mean you’re a great arts teacher, or even great articulating your own great art to others we need less artists “settling” for teaching careers after burning out their own creative practices and losing hope.

what is it to be dank as far as sound goes? my students call it earrape, despite me telling them to find a new word for it.

it’s truly important to always k*ll yr idols to some extent. it’s weird when you come to the point in your artistic career or whatever you wanna call it and you realize half the shit youve learned to do right was through seeing horrible mentors do it wrong. case in point my high school music teacher taught me exactly how not to foster creativity in a young artist aspiring to get their foot in the door of higher music education

music doesn’t need to require active engaged listening in order for it to have merit, there is joy in leaving something on in the background while completing other tasks while on the other hand, we can all benefit from actively listening to the # menial sounds that surround our day to day. does your personal acoustic ecology have a noticeable noise floor? what about a noticeable pitch?

critical music education is the music teacher holding a mirror up to themselves and asking the question “am i being aesthetically dictatorial?” a music teacher should never allow their aesthetic biases to become the basis for the concepts they are teaching. we can talk about four part harmony without focusing solely on baroque, just like we can talk improvisation without focusing solely on jazz.