pccom

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

PERSONAL CONTRACT FOR THE COMPOSITION OF MUSIC
[INCORPORATING THE MANIFESTO OF MISTAKES]
THIS IS WRITTEN FOR THE PURPOSE, NECESSITY AND DESIRE TO BE ORIGINAL AT ALL TIMES.
1. The use of sounds that exist already is not allowed. Subject to article 2. In particular:
No drum machines. All keyboard sounds must be edited in some way: no factory presets or pre-programmed patches are allowed.
2. Only sounds that are generated at the start of the compositional process or taken from the artist's own previously unused archive are available for sampling. The use of, ordering and manipulation of noise-sound is to be held as the highest priority in composition.
3. The sampling of other people's music is strictly forbidden.
4. With the exception of the human voice, no replication of traditional acoustic instruments is allowed where the financial and physical possibility of using the real ones exists.
5. The inclusion, development, propagation, existence, replication, acknowledgement, rights, patterns and beauty of what are commonly known as accidents, is encouraged. Furthermore, they have equal rights within the composition as deliberate, conscious, or premeditated compositional actions or decisions.
6. The mixing desk is not to be reset before the start of a new track. This is for the specific purpose of applying a random eq and fx setting across the new sounds. Once the ordering and recording of the music has begun, the desk may be used as normal.
7. All fx settings must be edited: no factory preset or pre-programmed patches are allowed.
8. Samples themselves are not to be truncated from the rear.
9. A notation of every sound used and its source to be taken and published within one year at magicandaccident.com.
10. A full description of all technical equipment used on each track to be published within one year at matthewherbert.com.
11. All samples will be deleted upon completion of the track.
12. Remixes must be completed using only the sounds provided by the original artist including any packaging the media was provided in.

13. MATTHEW HERBERT 27-11-00

― jess, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

so is this "the future", utter bollocks, or somewhere in between.

we can also use this thread to talk about how great herbert records are.

― jess, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i feel exactly opposite about numbers two, three, and four. the rest is all music geek masturbation.

― ethan, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Surely he can't be entirely serious...... can he? "To be original at all times" involves so much not accounted for here... arrangements, compositional elements, chord progressions, etc. The sonic nature of samples and sound bytes and whatnot only speaks for textural concerns. Of course, this manifesto probably irks me since it renders my musicianship obsolete (as well as 99.9% of hip hop), but does he really think such rigid anti-samplist code will promote originality?

I liked "Bodily Functions" in general, but my biggest qualm was probably the (far from "original" sounding) jazz sessions that pepper the album. Somebody like Amon Tobin seems a much more interesting choice for jazz-deviance, ALTHOUGH he breaks the rules apparently.

― Honda, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Any manifesto he wants to cook up to justify his "Let's All Make Mistakes" mix album is fine with me. That was DJerrific! Not that it adhered to any of the above.

― Curt, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Number 4 cuts out a whole bunch of fun in music.

― Mr Noodles, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

He forgot the bit about how the double live album is the fourth release.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Honda, I don't think he means being original at all times with regard to each and every imaginable facet of composition.

― Clarke B., Wednesday, 16 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Where did this little manifesto come from?

― Brock K, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Reading nr 3 and 8: You imply you can only sample your own music?

― helenfordsdale, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Clarke, you're probably right that he isn't trying for something so extensive... but then, why try at all? It's still a little silly to impose rules upon some levels of originality while leaving other aspects completely open. I'm not outraged or anything but it's odd that Herbert would set up this system and then give us an album that sounds quite conservative at times.

― Honda, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the crux of Herbert's manifesto is that with the possibilities of sampling being so wide open, restricting yourself to pre- recorded music as a source is a bit limiting. The manifesto takes this to extremes to make a point, but the basic idea is vaguely sympathetic ("why not sample both?" I think).

― Tim, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

He's trying for a kind of Dogme 95 effect - a tempting thing as anyone who remembers my old Blogme 95 musings may understand - it still makes him sound like a bit of a wanker though. I wish he would avoid the use of the human voice entirely to be honest.

However, like Tim says he's talking about the sampling and manipulation of non-musical noises (also note he doesnt specify when the "compositional process" starts). You can sympathise with his frustrations as this is a really rich field of music and yet a lot of people when they heard about Bodily Functions just sniffed and went, oh, Matmos did that, as if all records using vaguely similar sound- sources must be identical, or as if the concept is the only vital thing about these records. (Concept-wise Aube is more interesting anyway but I am too impatient for his actual CDs)

― Tom, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am certainly sympathetic to 3, 5 and 12 (and would be to 11 if it didn't partly contradict 12). (The rest is silly.)

A sort of subtext of my qn of yesterday about the Bootlegs site was - "I wish people had a bit more imagination in their use of sampling technology". The discipline of only being able to use sounds you have created yourself might be quite healthy - altho' as e.g. De La Soul have shown again recently, there's still plenty of mileage (& pleasure) yet to be got out of the recycling of others' music.

― Jeff W, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Technoheads. I'll use my stock answer when arguing with the hooded chrome-domes - "Whaddya do when the power goes out?"

― dave q, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

it's unfortunate that most people have only heard 'Bodily Functions', and not any of his other releases, under various other aliases. there's a full (very long!) discography on his website, under Mathew Herbert/Discography.

this contract is only meant for him personally, it's not that he's against others who break the rules. there is/was some writing elsewhere on the site explaining why he wrote the contract.

― michael, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

DQ - see point 5. You honour the beauty of the accident and bin the piece.

― Tom, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Put away my now-useless electric guitar and start making dance music on a battery powered sequencer."

― Tim, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

He forgot about the part of making up your own language and spelling. Boy, how stupid would that be?

― dleone, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

With the exception of the human voice, no replication of traditional acoustic instruments is allowed

so it's okay to use "Bruce (High Quality)" but not a sampled drum hit? strange. i always wonder why artists think we care about this stuff. i mean, painters don't include a schematic of their studio and how many different brushes they used or whatever. if the process that led to the music really is crucial to understanding the finished product (like the improvisational "games" ribot and zorn play sometimes in a live setting) then i guess it's good to know. but the telling inconsequentiality of this manifesto is indicated right at the top: "THIS IS WRITTEN FOR THE PURPOSE, NECESSITY AND DESIRE TO BE ORIGINAL AT ALL TIMES" oh puh-leeeeeeez. leave it in the practice room!

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It seems to me that this manifesto is aimed more at other potential artists than it is at a non-musician listener. The idea being that this is a mostly unexplored method of producing music (is this true?), especially when compared to more sample-centric stuff, and that other people should follow his example. Having yet to hear Herbert (he's on the ever expanding list of "things to buy when I move back to the Western World"), I cannot say whether or not this would be a good thing.

Also, I kind of get a kick out of knowing the process that goes into making a peice of music, regardless of its necessity in understanding said music. But I'm geeky like that.

― Matthew Cohen, Friday, 18 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I actually HAVE used ruled #6 in the studio, albeit unintentionally, or when the 'producer' was drunk.

Also, shouldn't there be a whole new medium created to play the end product? Once you put a CD on, no matter what comes out it's still just another CD. Maybe the music can only be listened to via kid's walkie-talkies, or tin cans w/string, or blasted out of helicopter Panama-style, or can only be played in a suburban house with one of those stupid 70s 'intercoms' for people who were too lazy to walk to the next room to tell them dinner's ready?

― dave q, Friday, 18 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.