Why Drone Part 2?

This is gong to be a rambling post that will contradict itself and provide no answers. At least not yet. Think of this as a one sided discussion (at least for now) attempting to answer the question “Why Drone” from a myriad of angles. Hence the need for a series of posts.

Note: due to the very nature of drone, these articles do not have to be read in order. You could even read part 2 last.

What is drone?

This post will focus on a singular question, "What is Drone?". There are no quick answers here and I do not believe there is a general consensus. Meaning there are drone like compositions that are not drone (at least to me). A good example of this are the compositions by John Luther Adams. His work has changed me and exemplifies the best qualities of drone but none the less it is not drone. Modern classical perhaps?

So, the best place to start is how drone music is defined in the wider world. From wikipedia: "Drone, is a minimalist genre of music that emphasizes the use of sustained sounds, notes, or tone clusters called drones. It is typically characterized by lengthy compositions featuring relatively slight harmonic variations."

Does this definition help? Mostly, but I believe it to be too broad and/or restricting. Saying drone is minimal in nature ignores bands like Pelt and the use of sustained sounds/notes would definitely include many modern classical composers. I would define drone as Wikipedia does but also add intent. What the artist is looking to accomplish matters. I should note that something not being drone does not diminish a piece of music's power or affect on individual. Saying all that, some part of me is uncomfortable with all of this – as perhaps it should be up to the listener what is and isn't drone?

"Naturally" occurring drones

A "naturally" occurring drone is a drone that was not composed but exists due to environmental reasons. Whether that environment exists underneath a bridge or within the home (the steady hum of the fridge for example). Using my definition above, this is not drone music because there is no intent. Which brings me back to being uncomfortable. Who am I to tell someone the sounds they hear under the Mopac Expressway's underpasses are not drone music but something that very much meets the definition but still comes up short somehow.

Or perhaps it is what is done to these sounds that make them music. Which once again brings up intent. Following this, a case study is needed and the perfect album for this is Shell Of A City by Lisa Lerkenfeldt.

Shell of a City is a composition that utilizes the substructure of a highway to create an "unearthly resonance". The resulting sounds were then gently processed (paraphrasing the releases bandcamp page).

An amusing anecdote about these compositions is that I find it very hard to make it through without drifting off to sleep. I want to stress this is not a bad thing – this music envelops you and you only exist within it.

It is this anecdote that gives credence to the idea that intent matters. Why? Because of this statement by the artist:

"Many people wrote to me to say ‘A Liquor Of Daisies’ tape was a tool they used for rest. How precious. ‘Shell Of A City’ follows in its path"

By this quote, it is clear that Lisa Lerkenfeldt intended for this composition to facilitate sleep/rest. Without the hand of the artist, would the music have had the same effect? I would argue it wouldn't – it would be raw and more like what you as an individual would experience if you were physically there.

So does that mean that there isn't worth if it did not have a guiding hand? It just depends – if this was simply a field recording, then what purpose does it have? Is this something a hypothetical artist thought sounded good to them or is there something within the recording that the audience HAS to hear? As Lawrence English pointed out in his essay, A Young Person’s Guide To Hustling (In Music and The Arts, time is a precious commodity and when an artist engages with the listener, they have the opportunity to waste their time or provide an experience. Simply sharing something that sounds only special to the artist will waste someone's time. So every artist has to ask themselves, what is the intent of this piece I am unleashing on the world?

So does that mean just doing something for yourself and sharing is worthless? Absolutely not. If the artist is just honest with their audience about why the piece exists then the listener can choose to engage in the social contract or not. If I ever up end sharing my music on here, this will likely be the situation. eg. This is just for me but feel free to listen along. And for some artists this has somehow launched them - Jandek being the best example of this.

OK – that is great and all but what did we decide?

That is a good question and my answer is we have not decided anything because there is another viewpoint (plus my data point has been cherry picked), music is defined by the listener. Someone might hear a jackhammer and be mesmerized by the industrial noise beat, while others might do everything in their power to avoid the sound. My point is there is no right answer – it is up to the listener. For me, intent matters and maybe a bit more (see below).

Then there is drone based music. This is music that utilizes drones (often as the underlying sound or foundation of the piece) while also incorporating other musical endeavors (like beats, synths, guitars etc). However, didn't I say above that there is music that is drone like but I don't see it as drone music? What gives? The answer, while maybe a cop out, goes back to intent and whether the drone is the focal point or not. If it isn't then the drone is just being used as another musical sound instead of tapping fully into its properties. Drone based music is across genres – from psychedelic rock to Jazz. A really good example of intent and drone as a focal point is the release, "at Black Mountain College Museum" by Setting. The album starts off with a drone that goes on by itself for a bit and never goes away. At the same time, what I can only describe as experimental folk/Appalachian improv plays over the top. Finally, the album ends in a drone that is reminiscent of tape hiss. A very solid release and one that would not be as mesmerizing, coherent and flowing without the foundational drone.

So what have we learned here? That drone music is personal and ultimately the listener is the one who decides what is drone music or not. For me, intent and whether it is the focal point is everything.

Recommend further reading on the subject:

Drone and Apocalypse by Joanna Demers

Monolithic Undertow: In Search of Sonic Oblivion by Harry Sword