Monday, November 28, 2011

Song As Eternal Monster Inside Sound

(Update note at bottom of post -- Mark)

It’s just sound
It’s machinery
But it’s you and me
And now we’re playing it forever

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“It’s just two people playing a song together,” she said. “But you think it’s more, don’t you?”

He didn’t say anything.

“We have the video files,” she said. “And the audio files. And the lead sheets. But you think there’s more, don’t you?”

He didn’t say anything.

“We have our memories,” she said. “What more could there be?”

He didn’t say anything.

“Molecules vibrate then stop,” she said. “Are atoms cascading, still changing state? Are entangled particles spraying out across the galaxy? Are imaginary morphic fields resonating with each other? You think there is an eternity and we can touch it?”

“In the morning when you look out across the water,” he said, “do you check to see if the monster is out there?”

“That’s me,” she said, “checking to see what the weather is like.”

“This is me,” he said, “still playing that song with you.”

She tried to look away before he could see her smile but either her head turned too slowly or her lips moved too quickly.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Loch Ness Monster Vs. Los Angeles

A Flute Playing And Fog Hides The Shore

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tuesday Update:

I don’t like to make changes to a post after I post it.

Sometimes I correct typos, but I almost never even change a word, unless add a note explaining why I’m making the change.

I’m going to make a reasonably big change to this post because it’s part of a series and I want it to be consistent.

Here’s the deal. When I write a post, I’m focused, almost always, on the words. I try to get what I’m saying to sound correct to me, and to convey what I want it to convey in a style I’m happy with. Even if it’s a video or a song, I look first at the words involved.

Then I try to make everything else at least reasonably adequate to support the words.

I like, very much, including little snippets of music notation but I’m not very good at it. I’m trying to get better, and I will. But sometimes I do stuff that I’m sure would make a real musician cringe.

I try to double check things, verify my music notation with automated players and such, but, still, music notation is a world that I am not that practiced with or relaxed with.

Anyway, so, this post has a little melody that I like a lot and the music notation captures the the melody reasonably well. But what I posted Monday was in 4/4 time and the first two posts in the series were in 3/4 time.

It’s just that I have only a certain amount of time to do these posts, and I have only a certain amount of experience with music notation. When I’m making up a melody or capturing a melody on keyboard or trying to notate a melody directly into a music program, it is more natural for me to use 4/4 time rather than 3/4, although, I’m sure, to any real musician the difference probably just makes them laugh.

Anyway, I should have taken the time to re-write the melody from yesterday from 4/4 time into 3/4 time to be consistent with the earlier posts. I did, later, and then I thought I’d just ignore it, but it bothered me and I decided to update this post.

So I changed the melody at the top of the post to be consistent with the earlier posts in this series. Here is the original 4/4 version of the melody. Played slowly, they both express the melody I was trying to capture. (To my ears the 3/4 version sounds slightly better somehow but I’m probably just nuts.)

No comments: