Direkt zum Inhalt

Do we need a new approach to music?

new music

This is the place where I summarize the discussion, which is spread across all of my social media channels. Let me – already now – say “thank you” to all, who have contributed and are still contributing. And here are all of the postings, opinions and thoughts so far:

Rolf´s Question:

Do we need a completely new kind of music?

“Do we need a new and completely different way of understanding music, of looking at music, of listening to music and to making/producing music again?”

In the 1950s artists were looking for such new ways, and teaming up with science and technical tools electronic music was born.

Now, 70 years later, we must say that there hasn´t changed that much since then. Not basically at least.

Ok, more sophisticated instruments have occurred and have improved the technical quality and have simplified our workflow. But a basic change, something basically new like this quantum jump of the 1950s has not happened so far.

What we are producing, what we are listening to is more or less something that we have already heard a thousand times.

And now I am curious: What´s your opinion?

Enjoy your day!



Shaun O'Connor

I think we go back to manipulating fragments of sound from out environment, and maybe leave interpretation to the listener to make up their own mind about what the music means to them. as for scoring such music, that is a difficult one. so the scoring( or writing patches) is maybe generic and the person who plays from the written score , like the listener, interprets that to their own feeling.


Rolf Kasten answering to Shaun:

Interesting approach, really. And, yes, scoring might well be one of the biggest problems, even if the question of scoring is a more formal one. I´m more and more leaning to a more interdisciplinary attitude, and even to rather radical measures. So, why not producing a kind of music that tries to reject the listener, to make them want to stop listening - but they can´t help listening on and on - perhaps because the music is accompanied by visual art, terrible and awful visual art. But together, these awful things together, the music and the visual art, they build a fascinating and attention binding unit, that the listener/viewer has to listen and to watch until the end, and, exhausted, falls back in their chair saying "I´ll never do that again!" before reaching out and starting the torture again right from the beginning. And why not letting in a third partner? Why not inviting even literature to complete this triumvirate of arts?


John Koranek answering to Rolf´s answer to Shaun:

Rolf Kasten DaDa music? That is an interesting thought. The problem is that my own brain would probably not be that interested in creating it because the act itself would not necessarily be very rewarding. One of my big personal challenges the number of times I might listen to a piece as part of the editing process. If each pass was painful, I might need to be a pretty strong masochist to finish it


Rolf Kasten answeriug to John:

I see. But it hasn´t to be painful to the composer/producer!


John Koranek

I see your Big Question about music on a couple of different levels: music and everyone in the world, and music and me.

For the question of music and the world, it’s interesting to look at groundbreaking music, unique voices, music that has and may stand the test of time. That’s the sense I get from your question. I’m less interested in that question. We have infinite access to infinite types of music, and yet bell curve is very squished. I feel that the general person only likes a few things, and is not interested in innovation or the meaning of music at all. Couple this with ever decreasing attention spans and I feel like creating for other people is somewhat useless. Pran Nath told Jon Hassell, when he developed his trumpet style influenced by classical Indian vocals, that people would flock to him in droves. I’m not sure he was right.

Music and me is a different story. I think when I was younger I had fantasies and desires to have a unique and important talent and body of work. Now I no longer aim so high. I also believed that part of being an artist is showing your work. Now I’m not so sure.

So these days I’m interested in playing and exploring. I am influenced by the music I hear in the sense that I’m always asking “How did they do that?” I incorporate these influences in what I’m working on. In that sense I’m influenced by things that other people might be influenced by. But I’m not using this as a way of creating something that someone else approves of. If 2/3’s of Soundcloud has a kick drum on the quarter note for the whole song, I’m unlikely to incorporate that to get more “likes.” I’m still not even sure it makes sense to put anything up on Soundcloud.

There is some part of my limbic system that buzzes when I hear something new or different or beautiful or weird. I pay attention to that.


Arjan Simons

this is a post, that you must react to 'against time'...

first; 70 years isn't that long. look how philosophy evovles or poetry, two domains i can, wel in one domain certainly i can call myself a 'master'.

in poetry in 70 years time, there were also not a lot new approaches.

look at 1910 to 1930, or 1850 to 1890. well, better 1850 to 1920/30. many steps, different ways, they still resonate.

after WWII, also but strangely, not as 'big' as around WW1.

the language, as system, is quite 'stable', the material, you can say, but there is enough bandwidth to uses 'synthesis', or new synthesis...

i can only say Paul Celan, after WWII, perhaps i am forgotting someone, o yes, of course; Allen Ginsberg. E.E. Cummings, but that is already 1920...

William Carlos Williams also earlier, or Wallace Stevens, Garica Lorca.

triumvirate of arts is good term, wish i had coined it...

art thrives on technology, is technological driven, and cross pollination...

literature, visual arts and music always have influenced eachother.

at the highpoint, that was indeed; the time i already given. also in music.

perhaps even in philosophy.

strangely philosophy in the end 60ties and the 70ties, was at a high point, with new approaches, very philosopical approaches, but also outside philosophy, philosphy stepped, but that it always, but now with more Kritik...

(philosophical postmodernism is something completely different than what it it is in art by the way. i call it popular postmodernism, some reduction.

philosophical postmodernism concerns itself with the Absolute, and is very critical over relativism. it is a critique on modernism. critique in the sense of; judgment, to differentiate, to dissect.)

when will i talk about music?

perhaps, it is not necessary as in; it is 'current' (actual, actueel/Aktuell), the act and the actual (as in current, mode, tendencies/trends) are in conflict, a Widerstreit (that never ends, and will never end..).

so we must not speak about time, in this manner. because we never will than react to the act, but to the actual, the reaction must be actual, not the actual must make the reaction; i.e. the current thinking, focus, etc.

the inner experience is at stake here (and is Absolute, or absolute... nothing do with religion by the way, mystical influences, perhaps, but with no goal, outside the experience..).

(actual can have two meanings, opposite, like every word)

there is always a third (beside you...).

not a very clear post, but that is normal for me, and it keeps holes in it, so the reader can do, like Shaun O'Connor says....

[must make still a small essay about act and actual, i see that it is somewhat difficult in english, first i must make it in dutch.. and stumble over the terms, and that is a good thing, one has to stumble over what you make, 'yourself']

o yes Ezra Pound's 'Make It New', is also ambigious, by the way, as it should be...

and personally, well what i write is always personal and unpersonal....

i try to reach a unique style, in music.

in writing i have achieved it. something that took me a lot of work, time, absolute immersion in the material. living and breathing.

i am not the only one, that says it is unique, everybody agrees, although of couse judgment; that they 'like' it... 'more difficult than the pisan cantos' of Ezra Pound.

but i didn't achieve this by wanting to be actual, only by act, writing as an act, that wasn't an act by me, but by writing itself, i.e. reading..........


Jim Valero

Indeed, drastic change has not happened for a long time. We've heard so much music since Modernism broke out at the start of the last century. Hard to come up with anything truly new, having gone through Stravinsky, Debussy, Pierre Henry, Concrete Music, Stockhausen, John Cage, Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Tomita, et al., there is hardly any new roads to explore. Noise of all kinds has been incorporated into music, sounds from everyday life, streets, avenues, bars, factory machines. That does not mean we should stop exploring, quite the contrary. But the road ahead "ain't no crystal stair." 


Rolf Kasten anwering to Jim:

I agree with you. Perhaps the key (and the "stair" - even if probably not a crystal one) is in ourselves: when my music starts boring me (the music, not the process of making it - this process is never boring, but the result can be), I´ll go ahead trying something else. I´m more and more leaning to crossing the borders between the arts, and combining sonic experience with visuals and literature. This combination generates - more or less "automatically" - even a different kind of music, a different kind of visual arts and a different kind of literature, because none of them neither stands for itself, nor comes to life, is produced individually, but together with the other two: the music forces me to change my painting, which then forces me to adjust my music. And it´s the same with the other interactions between music, visuals and literature.



Jim Valero answering to Rolf:

Rolf Kasten I work in a similar way. I do not paint, but I am often inspired to make music based on literary subjects, especially Greek mythology. Oftentimes, a myth, like that of Echo and Narcissus, informs my process of creation, guides my imagination, and leads me to produce something I am satisfied with. I also find interaction between disciplines very rich and stimulating. 


Enric Socias

I think the concept of novelty it's kind of overstimated in all creative fields, and after all, the whole concept works as a marketing value when, in my opinion, what it's really valuable is to do interesting and good artistic productions above the shining of a doubfull novelty.


Rolf Kasten answering to Enric

You´re right of course. As I see it, there are two (well, more, but 2, which may answer your posting) questions. First: "Is the urge to discover/make something new in me, in the composer/producer, is it my own curiosity?" and second: "Starts my own music to be boring to me?" (I mean the music, not the process of making it).


Enric Socias answering to Rolf:

Hi, as you answer from the perspective of the creator/creatress, and the feelings and doubts that come along with the composing process (which is totally relevant, of course), I was focusing the matter from the side of the consumers of these artistic productions and the rethorics with wich industry tags this production in order to make it atractive. At the end, these rethorics affect the way creators create.

Of course art must evolve along with society and the flow of generations, but it's still interesting to think on how "new" is a generation compared to previous ones and /or those form other cultures and ways of doing.

Focusing on the matter of electronic music, not long time ago an acquitance told me that electronic music that he heard nowadays as contemporary seemed to him very similar to music that he could hear 20 or 30 years ago. I thought in that moment that may be that synthesizers had hep all other musical genres to advance but electronic music itself is in a kind of timeless place. Sure other people will not agree with that.


Kil Bonar

Aphex twin/Squarepusher....pretty mad re-imagination of jazzy beats via computers. The last big shift that I can think of. If anyone can get close to that I would be impressed.


Tyrone Gordon

Just because you don’t listen to more experimental music doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist


Rolf Kasten answering to Tyrone

Sure. But the question is: Is it really something new? Or is it just a revival of old ideas produced with modern technology?


Pete Adams answering to Rolf:

Rolf Kasten and that 50s era you speak of was no different. We've been tossing the same 12 notes around for a long time. From orchestras to player pianos to recording to multitrack recording to digital recording, simulation, virtual instruments, and more... At the end of the day it's just new ways to communicate those same old ideas.

Music is not, and has never been, a linear progression. It works in cycles. For all of history, old ideas come back again. New generations borrow from old. It's not a problem, it's glorious.


Bob Lee

The quantum leap of the last 20 years is how affordable it has become to record and distribute your own stuff, and work at a high standard. That has removed the utter necessity of a company backing the vision in order for music to be produced at all.


Xin Nor

Short answer:

Yes, of course.

• It’s the nature of our species.

• Tech will come and go.

• Modern easy access to the music of different cultures will influence each other.

For me, as a multi-instrument hobbyist who is doing everything from writing to mixing I learn something every session. Since I haven’t “finished” a song since the 80s clearly the process itself keeps me fascinated. “New to me” is not the same as new to someone else. I may be playing a chord progression that’s been played by millions or by me hundreds but each time is a fresh experience. Sound design at the arrangement, instrument or mix level - endless paths.

I hope this was useful.


Kyle Bartell

I have a box full of tools, some are 30 or 40 years old. The fact that I want to make something new and different in no way renders those tools useless. Music has been around for centuries, and we can still (very reliably) apply it's core principles effectively.

I'm curious about what aspects of it you would be willing to scrap...


Peter Denmark

I'd agree with your basic point, with the idea that you missed a revolution along the way. Hip-hop both took advantage of new technology and exploited existing tech in unheard-of ways. But that was about 40 years ago, so I'd say we're certainly due for something new!

Done E. Low

I guess it has always been some kind of collecting ideas from the past and combining it in a new way. Of course you can always replace music with noise and pretend it's the next level of abstraction. But the core of making music will be to reach the heart and soul of human listeners. And that will almost always call for melody, harmony and rhythm. Using these elements you can come up with much more interesting pieces of music or songs than the most primitive common mainstream material rotating on the radio and on streaming platforms. But you don't get noticed when being original.


Bob Lee answering to Done:

Done E. Low good post though I believe that last sentence is not strictly true. Some original people do get completely ignored, in their day but some get noticed. It may be that they get mainly noticed by other artists, who then take inspiration from that original idea and make it into something more accessible. CA hardcore bands like Adolescents and TSOL sold a few thousand records in their day, but inspired the Offspring, whose version of the same thing sold millions. Now the Adolescents and TSOL play at big festivals to kids with punk parents who grew up listening to them.


Done E. Low adding to his answer to Done:

Bob Lee Good point here!


Jerry Sutton

Throughout history, giant leaps in music (or art in general) are usually made when there's a leap in technology. Maybe virtual reality and AI are the next catalyst 


Bob Lee answering to Jerry Sutton:

Jerry Sutton I think that the most optimistic view of it possible. I think AI produced art is boring as shit and yet likely to become incredibly popular. I'm old fashioned. The real purpose behind all of this art scene is human beings feeling less alone in the world.


Rob Wessel

I think the full potential of 1970s progressive rock was never fully explored. It kind of disappeared (or went indie) just as polyphonic analog and digital synths appeared in the 1980s, and long before later advances in guitar design, recording and mixing technology, etc.

So I’m devoting my musical time and energy to exploring prog rock with modern technology. Sorry, I’m not creative enough to invent a new kind of music, only recycle ideas from music that inspired me.


Xin Nor answerinbg to Rob:

Rob Wessel I recently discovered how much prog rock has influenced me. In a list of 10 top prog rock bands I have vinyl for 8 out 10 and some are still active on my playlists.

Another related genre was jazz-fusion. Similar trajectory in many way. I also have a fair bit of that both on vinyl and playlists.

John M. Licari also answering to Rob:

Rob Wessel Please check out Dillinger Escape Plan.


Eric Morecambe

I have 2 particular trains of thought on this.

A: an 'invention/idea, I came up with about 30 years ago. The Acronym I gave it, is MINI, or Music Instrument Neural Interface.

Where a device inputs the data from the brain, directly into the computer and using the equivalent of VSTi' s recreates the instrument one requires. Basically, we ALL have songs in our head, with this device, we can then simply 'think' the song into a DAW. This can be done as the finished piece, but then the ability to translate the complexities of the parts would diminish, so multitracking each instrument would still be the preferred method. That way all the Nuances of each instrument are captured in full. So if you can 'hear' a Steinway grand in your head, that is what gets translated and recorded. Same with a Strat going through a Marshall 800, via a 4x12. If you can think the sound, it will be played into the track. The cool thing is with using a DAW is, it can still be edited manually, etc. But depending on how accurate ones mental musicality is, editing should be minimal.

My other thought on the subject, is when everyone embraces the old Pythagorean tuning once more, which doesn't necessarily glean new styles or forms of music per ce, but puts music back where it belongs, in complete harmony with nature, the universe and human consciousness. Pythagorean tuning, based around 432hz middle A, as opposed to the false tuning of 440. Has inherent in it, a profound connection to Geometry, where all the numbers relating to each note frequency in the scale, have a relationship to all of the Polygons and Platonic solids, that is beyond coincidence. Literally NO other form of tuning conforms to that significant factor. From a Gematria perspective, also found in Mathematics, is the fact that every single number in the frequency of each note reduces down to 9, EVERY number, and the interval between each note is 9. So, whilst many 'assume' 432 is just some arbitrary calibration of musical tuning, it isn't, there's nothing remotely arbitrary about it. It is reflected in time, and the motions and distances of bodies in our solar system, and 432 is the ONLY number that has a mathematical relationship with the speed of light. Pythagoras as musician, occultist and mathematician, new this well. So, music performed in this tuning, will have a subtle but harmonious effect upon consciousness. 440 is close but no cigar.


Kyle Bartell answering to Eric:

Eric Morecambe Disagree, respectfully, with the whole 'Pythagorus was right' idea.

432, 440... The difference is 8 Hz. You and me together ain't capable of discerning an 8Hz difference. Mathematical or not, if A = 440 and everything else cues off of it, then it's all 'in tune'. It's about music and the pleasure we gain from it. It's not about vibratin the cosmos.


Eric Morecambe answering to Kyle:

Kyle Bartell and I disagree respectfully back, it's not about 'discerning' an 8 hz difference, the subconscious mind picks up way more than our conscious mind does. So it's effect is more subliminal. I understand your problem, you're still trying to look at it from a reductionist mindset. Stuck within a dogma that is becoming fast outdated. Science is just a consensus, waiting to be proved wrong. As it inevitably is.

Are you saying Pythagoras was wrong?perhaps the Square on the Hypotenuse, is is equal to the cabbages on the other two sides! It's not a case of 'belief' in some theory or other. These are quantifiable facts. I don't deal in beliefs, and opinions, they're usually not worth the breath they expend. But simply naysaying something, doesn't make that thing incorrect. There are ALWAYS different levels of perception. Whether folk are aware of that or not, it's largely irrelevant, because those cognitive states exist. Do you think it's purely coincidence that the only tuning that exists that has a direct relationship with geometry, is 432 based tuning. Or do you disbelieve in the concept of Cubes and Dodecahedrons etc. Respectfully, and with no Ego triggering intended, you have much to learn my friend.

Jonathan Sandberg also answering to Kyle:

Kyle Bartell it's not about just one frequency of tuning or everything being 'in tune' as a whole, it's about the whole collective of harmonies in relation to that freq. of tuning. It's not something you will emediatly pick out, but the 'feeling' is much different, even with the slight adjustment when listening to a piece as a whole.

I've been part of a study where they experimented with exactly this 400 vs 432 tuning, and the overal conclusion was very interesting.


Pete Adams answering to Jonathan:

Jonathan Sandberg it's not even about everything being in tune as a whole. Music is about the space between those notes, the intervals. Further, the entire act of writing and playing music is our attempt to put things in tune with nature, elicit an emotional response, and to communicate something intangible. The whole idea of a magic new tuning is not different than those gold tipped studio cables, fancy monitors, nifty guitar pedal, expensive converters, or whatever magic fix we think is going to take our creation to that place we strive for. But ultimately all that great music of the past, that inspired us to do this, and made us feel profound emotion... It was recorded in the "wrong" tuning, on crappy, incredibly limited gear, and it was still magical.


Eric Morecambe answering to Pete:

Pete Adams but it's not a "magical new tuning"! It's in fact a very ancient magical tuning. Pythagoras isn't some rapper. But one of the Grandfathers of mathematics. As you so accurately said, "the entire act of writing and playing music, is our attempt to put things in tune with nature..." Well this IS EXACTLY what Pythagoras had discovered, 432 IS in tune with nature. I suggest you go and research Polymath, Robert Edward Grant, and his profound discoveries about how 432 is in perfect geometric harmony and alignment with nature, in his research about equal temperament in 432hz based tuning. If ones clings to dogma, then it is impossible to move forward, this is not something 'new' being 'discovered', it's something very old, being remembered. Perhaps if you researched Randall Carlsons work on Sacred Geometry, you would clearly see that 432 sits at the heart of so many things. Sound is just liquid Geometry, if you can't understand that concept, then 432 will just appear as an arbitrary number to you. If you still operate from a perspective where all states of awareness are equal, that is you problem, they are not. If you can accept the remote possibilty, that perhaps someone understands, or is aware of something, that you are or do not, then perhaps there is hope.

Pete Adams answering to Eric:

Eric Morecambe my point has sailed over your head. Read it again, see if you can understand what I've said better.

Eric Morecambe answering to Pete:

Pete Adams no, nothing sailed over my head, I got your point clearly thanks.

Pete Adams answering to Eric:

Eric Morecambe you clearly did not. The tuning, unless you are an immortal vampire, is new to YOU. Meanwhile, all the music that you grew up on, were inspired by, and reacted to was made using the current system. And here you are, inspired enough to be here, doing this. While you yammer about long dead mathmeticians, spirituality, and the general tuning of mother nature herself, the rest of us are happy to simply strive toward and be inspired by what is already here in front of us.


Eric Morecambe answering to Pete:

Pete Adams The 'tuning' as you put it, wasn't just used by Pythagoras, Verdi tuned in A432. There have been many instruments throughout the world, tuned in this way, even though by our 'standards these people had no way of knowing what a cycle per second was. Nevertheless, the fact remains. It's pointless for me to discuss this any further, considering you quoted "spirituality" when, I never even mentioned it. So, if you feel the need to 'put words in others mouths' so to speak. It displays that, that's why you can't understand these concepts. That's fine, your choice. If you're happy using whatever tuning feels comfortable to you, that is your prerogative. I know what I know., and That makes me happy.


Pete Adams answering to Eric:

Eric Morecambe sorry, I always throw spirituality into the equation when people latch onto psuedoscience. You're right, it's a pointless discussion. Good luck.


Eric Morecambe answering to Pete:

Pete Adams that's 'Pseudoscience' btw!


Jeffrey Maughan



Morningafter Chill

The biggest jump is the use of virtual instruments and plug ins, I really can't any further advances than that, we already have AI musicians and hologram virtual concerts so other than telepathy I really can't see any further advances in my life time.

But one thing will never change and that's the very tiny number of musicians who will make money from their hobby


James Ingram answering to Morningafter Chill:

Morningafter Chill Most of us don't do it to make money, but for the sheer enjoyment of creativity. And that can apply to a bar band doing covers of Chuck Berry songs too, let alone us creating in the darker, dustier corners of music production. I'm not really bothered about making cash from it. I am bothered that a few days without the creative process, even if that's trying to design a sleeve for physical or digital release, is unnerving.


Marius Paulikas

Sorry, but saying nothing has dramatically changed since the 50s is extremely dismissive and reductive. There have been many, many quantum leaps in both technology, new and never-before imagined genres and stylistic directions, and the domain of possible sounds is far from explored yet, although really a lot of ground has been covered. Musique concrete pioneers in the 50s only dipped their toes in the new domain of acousmatic sound. And really, the most essential change in conceptualization of music itself (of what it is and can be) happened earlier with the "Art of Noises" manifesto by famed futurist Luigi Russolo, opening up the notion of using noise as part of music. I could agree only that the last 20 years or so were quite devoid of major colossal innovations, if only because of how much was invented and explored in the previous few decades. It's really hard nowadays to come up with any really new idea at all, so most adventurous musicians settle with mixing different genre influences in new ways. But I still see some interesting new directions taking place, like for example, a deconstruction of "musical piece" form as such by replacing it with constantly evolving or recombining algorithm/app/online stream/generative AI.


Steven Rosser

There's been more development in the world of production though with things like ambisonics and fractal generated music, I am sure those guys in the 50's would be tripping out on what you can do with today's technology


Greg Hooper

whether we have new music depends on the level of abstraction you use. Parameters such as predictability have been pulled apart and taken to their extremes. Hard to go past that other than find new parameters - for example psychoacoustic phenomena where you 'hear' things through the combination of physical phenomena and social context ie perceive sound purely through the neural response to a complex environment


Colin Robinson

Looks like Berna 3 there - I have a lot of fun with Berna and Ongaku.


Rolf Kasten answering to Colin:

Yes, Colin. The picture is taken from a Berna 3 setup.


Oli Foxen

I have the real version of that signal generator.

Equipment and technique isn't what amkes the music.


Rolf Kasten answering Oli:

Absolutely true!


Chris Mick

Most important we don’t need an ideology what music is or has to be for whom. The tonal/atonal, microtonal and formal/rhythmical frames are there like languages, letters or paint. Every culture and individual worldwide has the freedom to choose from for example extreme avantgarde to simplest pop. What may be more in need is a free and sophisticated education opening minds to all the possibilities and making offers for building up a large repertoire or being curious and making discoveries apart from only commercial/mainstream manipulation - anything goes and I don’t worry about the future.


John Maloney

A good thing to do is to Go and Listen to a top level Symphony or Philharmonic orchestra. Top level musicians playing top level quality instruments all done acoustically, it actually blows your mind of what quality musicianship and sound can achieve.


Xin Nor answering to John:

John Maloney we recently saw the Glenn Miller band. Amazing. Inspirational. Also made me a little sad because I suck.


John Maloney ansering to Xin:

Xin Nor .When we listen to bands like that we sometimes forget of all the years hard work that these guy's went through. Inspiration helps us keep going forward to better standards in ourself.


Xin Nor answering to John:

John Maloney I don’t forget. Yes inspirational


Norbert Mascha

I disagree mildly. It's not the same music. There's a significant difference,in my opinion at last.

The electronic music in the 1950's was seen as a different way to write and perform classical music.

Since the 1970's it has developed into popular music. Starting as the semi classical approach by Jarre, Tangerine Dream, Tomita and so on.

In the 1980's it became a phenomenon because synthesizers became somewhat more affordable and the punk rock approach of DIY music got spread widely.

It also encouraged socially awkward people like me to make music by myself, no band necessary,lol.

The EDM movement only got stronger, having developed as House in Detroit and Chicago, as well as New York, citing Kraftwerk as the main influence.

Nowadays it's available to everyone by way of VST's and DAW's if one is so inclined.

That's actually how music should be.


Rolf Kasten answering to Norbert

Thank you for commenting, Norbert! But ... Herbert Eimert´s studies in electronic music (and the following works) as a way to write and perform classical music? And what about Stockhausen? Enjoy your day! Rolf


Norbert Mascha answering to Rolf:

Eimert and Stockhausen were set to revolutionize classical music.

(Der schöne deutsche Unterschied zwischen E- Musik und U-MusikBild entfernt.) in my opinion.

Anyway, I love both directions, synthesizer popular music couldn't exist without the pioneers especially in France and Germany. And for me as a lover of sounds that you can get out of (sry to say) VST's has enabled me to experience the musical freedom I enjoy having. And I am a complete hack when it comes to most of music theory and especially hardware. I follow the same path than when I played in Punk bands in the mid 80's.

If it sounds good and creates a reaction, its worth doing it.

Insofar I feel very close to all the various aspects, for me starting with Stockhausen,

via Pierre Schaeffer and the "French School" of electronic music, to the "Krautrock" psychedelics of "Neu!", the machine music concept of Kraftwerk into New Wave.

To sum it up: For me, even someone who wants to create more E- Musik could do it with the possibilities of todays accessibility. The instruments might be the same as such, in fact you need Oscillators and the such.

But the limitless possiblity to create everything is unbeatable.


Rolf Kasten answering to Norbert:

Ah, I see what you meant with "classic". You meant this "E-Music" thing. Well, let´s not forget, that there was a lot of "Unterhaltungsmusik" in classic music as well. Anyway - that´s another topic. Enjoy your day! Rolf


Raymond Brodeur

You are excellent!!I hope you are sending your music to recording studios.And talking about recording studios your studio is as great as their equipment!You are amazing!All that equipment shown makes me curious on the echo machine shown and what is it?And what movie did you show with your beautiful music??Im very impressed with your talent.I hope music studios are calling you.Are you in France?And you are also talented in electronics as far as recording as well.WOW!!!


Rolf Kasten answering to Raymond

No, I´m not in France. I´m Czech. Enjoy your day! Rolf


Pere Amengual

A LOT has changed in the last 100 years as to what do we understand by Music.

And yes, what Schönberg named as Klangfarbenlodien is at the heart of one of the most profound changes in the history of Music. I see no point in denying it.


John Maloney

some artists have great talent , its just that now days the ''industry'' has become what a lot of people are aiming for. Become a part of the treadmill .When I was a teenager in the late 60's every band played different unique styles of music because people appreciated creative freedom. Creative freedom is still existing but most are focused on fame and fortune as a goal. The older bands I am talking about hoped for fame and fortune but were focused on music and song writing as the priority. Today it is a form of fast food industry controlled by people that want to sell stuff. Men in suits run the music world and the wanna be's kiss their butts. The not so creatives copy formulas [and thats ok] but they usually have to buy recognition and it dies quickly.[so be it] . Just be creative and do your best then you are at least authentic and honest as an artist.


Tyrone Gordon answering to John:

John Maloney they didn’t, they all played what they were told to play until the Beatles came around and then everyone played like them until the next fad came don’t pretend you know everything just because your a contrarian


John Maloney answering to Tyrone:

Tyrone Gordon There were many bands around the late 60's that were not like the beatles. They the [beatles] created a change of direction in the early '60's but musical creativity expanded very rapidly after the mid 60's and early 70's. The beatles were continuously evolving as well. Nothing musically was stagnant at that time. There were a lot of revolutionary very creative talented muso's appearing everywhere. Hendrix is one example only. People had a positive message and they wrote music to express that. Nothing like the standard bling crap thug music of today. You are right a lot of music today is cloned nonsense not talented artistry. People have developed skills musically but that is not enough in the end, art has to have real soul ,something that inspires.The same old story that has always made the difference between quality and crap. People are driven by the need to be a celebrity not to be an artist...Genuine people have something else thats unique to them. Thats why they stand out.


Tyrone Gordon answering to John:

John Maloney buddy just because you say so doesn’t make it so many modern musicians have created plenty of unique and soulful music just because you personally are against “thug” music doesn’t suddenly fucking disqualify it anymore then me not liking you disqualifies you as a human being. You not liking it doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong it just means you don’t like it


John Maloney answering to Tyrone:

Tyrone Gordon just because you have emotional difficulties with other musicians doesn't mean every one else is wrong.

Richard Boase

maybe we just need a new way of assessing sound and rhythms

Rolf Kasten answering to Richard:

Interesting. Can you explain it a bit deeper, please?

Richard Boase answering to Rolf:

well traditionally music is defined by it's chord sequences and technical ability to play where as a lot of electronic music can be drone -y or repetitive and might not have any 'musical notes' or maybe just a simple motive that repeats which traditionally would be dismissed as not very good and not 'real music' because it is either programmed or spontaneously knob twiddling ie altering frequencies with faders and such like but if the end result is both rhythmic and musically pleasant or atmospheric or sound scaping then it should be valid and it is to those who think outside of the traditional values.

Rolf Kasten answering to Richard:

Thank you for this explanation. And, yes, these are interesting aspects to think about. That might even lead to a different kind of the (not always "lucky") relation of music and text. Enjoy your day! Rolf


Von Frani

Very interesting perspective. Makes we wonder. Thanks for sharing

Pete Shepherd

I think this may be overly pessimistic in terms of how music has changed in the past 70 years. Arjan raises an interesting point about poetry and the written word and its speed of change. I was drawn to reflecting on Burroughs and the development of cut up - is that idea not ubiquitous in electronic music now ? we've become magpies, taking a bit of this, of that, a shiny thing from there and a lump of that from over yonder. The extremes of environmental music (Jana Winderen for example) compared to the excesses of Dubstep (say Skrillex - though that may be old hat now) or the slick ideas of say, Daft Punk, all indicate an experimental movement away from the conventions of Music as may have been thought so 70 years ago. Schoenbergs 12 tone ideas, Schaeffer's decontextualisation and Stockhausen's drone approach have all been absorbed, reinterpreted and in some way commodified into popular and avant garde music.


Rolf Kasten answering to Pete:

I see your point, and - indeed - I´m rather reluctant to disagree. But don´t all of the examples you mentioned (not Schoenberg, nor Schaeffer nor Stockhausen of course) have at least one constant aspect in common: They want their productions to be liked by as many people as possible. That´s a point I´m brooding over: what is the meaning or importance of people liking a piece of art? I see (and feel to a certain degree myself) the wish of the artist, the wish, that the product of their work shall be accepted and liked. But the piece of art itself? To what amount or degree can acceptance be an aspect of quality, if at all ...... Enjoy your day! Rolf

Pete Shepherd answering to Rolf:

Rolf Kasten ah yes, this is an internal battle I often have with myself. after 54 years I've come to the conclusion that I make art because I have to, its inside and had to come out...so the logical progression of this is that if people like it im happy, if they dont or ambivalent then that's cool too. its not theirs, its mine so I can do what I want.

Rolf Kasten answering to Pete:

Alright, that´s a sane approach, and I think it´s what counts at the end of the day.

Scott Hass

New technology and techniques are the reason it’s impossible to make money as an artist. Now we’re all t shirt peddlers.

Tyrone Gordon answering tro Scott Hass:

Scott Hass blame it all on everything but your ability and appeal, take yourself completely out of the equation so it’s everything and everyone else fault and you have zero control that’s the spirit




Add new comment

Das Sprachkürzel des Kommentars.


  • Keine HTML-Tags erlaubt.
  • Zeilenumbrüche und Absätze werden automatisch erzeugt.
  • Website- und E-Mail-Adressen werden automatisch in Links umgewandelt.