Post #609936 by Mr. Ho on Wed, Oct 12, 2011 10:07 AM

so, emspace - you seem pretty defensive here (perhaps passionate is better!). :wink: I didn't set out , nor am I claiming to be doing something unique except from my own perspective: so, yes, I am claiming that there are aspects in the Orchestrotica's music that don't reflect things I have heard before. I think the takeaway here is that you have a pretty firm definition of what is it, and what it isn't. The old "nothing is really new" argument could come alive here - knowing whether something is unique takes a lot of perspective and history.

btw, the last track I was referring to is Autumn Digging Dance. I will definitely confirm that our latest album has cover tunes and tunes that try to be simpler melodies, harmonies, rhythms, less complexity etc. (MAIKA is beautifully simple and a favorite).

the shakuhachi granite tiki refers to is something Geni our WW player performs live, often on Phoenix Goodbye (which was recorded with flute). This is a bit of an inside joke as the drone sound in the bass and the flute duet is a reference to Albanian iso-polyphonic folk singing (Geni is Albanian which led me to explore his heritage a bit since I knew nothing about it a few years ago).

Instrumentation wise, yes, the core of my quartet is not unique as i said earlier - that baseline instrumentation is very much rooted in denny/lyman's lineup sans piano - that was a launch point for us. However, there are other groups out there using that lineup too - playing swing, latin music, etc - so are they exotica by definition because of that? Again, comes back to your definition of the genre - I think your fence is smaller and more defined than mine, and some others, so it's not about right/wrong as much as perspective I think (and there are no rules as to where you can put your fence up!).

IN terms of combining styles; i always felt that the classic exotica was more about grabbing cultural "cliches" and occasionally adding "asian" and latin instruments to that...(trad jazz being the exception - a core competency). I don't think that this alone defines a genre for me (orchestral composers did this for years).

In the 50s/60s, I don't really know if there were conscious choices to avoid traditional performance practices on these instruments in favor of "making something new" or whether it was more like "hey, this gamelan sound is cool - i don't know much about that tradition but i will try to add it to our set list." And, leave it at that. I can definitely say most of the percussion approach I've heard falls into this category (and I am not saying that it's bad here).

So, without insulting the music, to me, much of the older material is a bit more surface ("wallpaper" according to Denny) than it was about combining more specific, conscious musical elements together with rigor (rhythms, modes, styles, cultural references, composer references, etc). I tend to prefer the latter as a composer (even if it ends up being delivered as just "exotic" sounding to regular listeners which is fine). I like the multiple levels of depth - you can (I hope my listeners can, I should say) enjoy its output without having to worry about "Getting it" from the composer/performer perspective...but if you want, there is more under the covers. I think the world is more connected; it's easier for curious musicians to pay respect to other traditions at a deeper level now thanks to technology, youtube, etc. So maybe that's partially why the older music has more of a specific sound.

i don't usually talk about this stuff because most audiences don't care and just want to enjoy some music! I'm blabbering, enough!

b