I've heard quite a bit of electronic music lately that all seems to be using the "glitch" aesthetic -- taking sounds such as a cd skip, or a computer soundcard 'hiccup' and using those sounds as the basis for the creation of your musical palate.

This can be done very well, or very poorly, as I've heard examples at both extremes. Either way, the glitch technique seems to be everywhere, regardless of if the composition calls for it. Much like synthesizers and drum machines were in the 80s. (Again, there were good and bad uses of those tools in the 80s, but they were definitely overused.)


I'm curious to know at which points in classical music history the same phenomenon has occurred whereby a new instrument or orchestration technique was (re)invented and then, out of sheer popularity, the technique appears in the music of the time way more often than it deserves to.

Well, watch any of your modern television dramas or listen to any film score and you are likely to encounter a preponderance of pedal point. This sometimes serves the dramatic purpose. However, in the hands of a master like Bach, pedal point is a spectacular device that builds tension at the appropriate structural and harmonic moments. In the hands of today's dramatist composers, it seems to just show up everywhere regardless of tonal context. This is perhaps a mere symptom of a larger musical trend that many feel has undermined the musical traditions we've inherited. That would be the mainstream shift away from pure structural music toward music that does not stand alone but rather requires an extra-musical dramatic context (Wagner, film music, etc.).

the latest (in rainbows) from my favorite band starts with a track that... well... let's just say i took the speaker covers off to check for a blown tweeter after the first time i played it... once i heard it on a few other systems i realized it was on purpose. honestly hated the effect at first and it seemed superficial and not needed, but it grew on me and now i couldn't imagine that track without it.

these examples that you say are so "extreme", how many times did you give them a chance? how do you determine if it is done "poorly" or "very well"?

paranoiddroid97 wrote:
these examples that you say are so "extreme", how many times did you give them a chance? how do you determine if it is done "poorly" or "very well"?

PREFACE: Given my extreme relativism in past posts, i might be stating the obvious here, but "poorly" and "very well" to me are extremely subjective categories, and anything I describe as sounding "poorly" or "very well" is going to be only my opinion.

You're fully welcome to disagree.


1)
One way of categorizing good/bad is "do I like it or not?" which is obviously, as you pointed out, subject to the repetition-builds-familiarity and familiarity-builds-comfort phenomenon.

No matter how bad a musical idea sounds the first time, most individuals start to warm up to, or at least tolerate it, after prolonged exposure.


2)
Another way of categorizing good/bad is "does the choice made support the rest of the choices made in the piece of art." Does the piece have unity/coherence/consistency.

A song about being in love with nature, the rising sun, the falling stars, the cool breeze, may not call for electronic glitch sounds (much less ANY type of electronic orchestration) unless you are trying to convey the message that

- Machines are a part of nature
- This song is sarcastic
- Machines interfere with nature (and the use of glitch sounds is reserved for lyrical/melodic sections that contrast the main idea of the song)


Unless your use of glitch supports the piece in some way, this _style_ of categorization would say it's a poor choice.


In the case of instrumental pieces, I've heard some pieces that had a really strong rhythmic drive.. everything in them, the melody, the bassline, the snare drum, the kick drum, etc, is all cramming a rhythm down the listeners throat.

To have a rhythmic glitch part would work well in this case, but to have a glitch part that is not reinforcing the rhythm of the track would seem to say "this part isn't fitting," and unless there's a good reason for it not to fit, it's probably a poor choice.

Saving that non-rhythmic part for the breakdown where the drums drop out and there is very little rhythmic reinforcement, however, might be a brilliant way of contrasting the sections and conveying to the listener:

"Now is the time on Sprockets when we stop dancing."

And then you let your little flickers of current and CD skippery dash about your soundscape unworried of their rhythmic implications until the beat comes back in.

Hey, so what's an example i might know or be able to find online where you think the use of glitch effects, or something like it, was bad? What about an example where it was good? It is hard to imagine something concrete _base_d on your de_script_ion but i think i understand where you are headed...

you had it coming.Tiffany and Co JewelryThat won't happen will it? He will win the game That won't happen will it?GlassesKeep in touch.Tiffany & CoSame difference.It doesn't add up! It doesn't make any sense. I just bought milk yesterday… But we're out of it today.It doesn't add up.Tiffany and Co JewelryOh my god._link_s Of London JewelleryEveryone wins. Good for both sides.Tiffany & CoHave a heart.Æ£Õ¡Ëüêó°Talk about it next time.Tiffany BraceletsDon't be so stubborn.It's a long story.Tiffany JewelleryGet off on the wrong foot.Tiffany Co JewelryAs long as you like it.Tiffany NecklaceYou are the boss.Tiffany JewelryDoesn't matter what you say.Cheap UggsYou messed up.Tiffany EarringsYou haven't changed a bit.Tiffany Co JewelryHe rubs me the wrong way. You really did it this time.Tiffany NecklaceThat's the way it is.My heart hurts.Tiffany BraceletsGood idea.There's no other way.It takes two to tango.Leave me alone.Don't you have a heart!Have you been listening!What do you mean by that!I'll pretend I didn't see that.I forgot what I was gonna say.Actions speak louder than words.You think I like it like this!Everyone's ready and waiting for you.Why are you yelling? Mysite:http://www.baozangku.cn