From: John Young (jyoung@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2010 - 08:30:55 EDT
Indeed it is - tongue firmly in cheek there!
J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca on behalf of Peiman Khosravi
Sent: Tue 6/22/2010 1:01 PM
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: On Sonic Art Musings
But surely it is tautological to say "sound-based sonic art"?
P
On 21 Jun 2010, at 18:18, Kevin Austin wrote:
>
> Is it not heretical to suggest that sonic art is soundly-bassed?
> Sir, I do believe you are referring to dubstep.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On 2010, Jun 21, at 1:08 PM, John Young wrote:
>
>> and possibly because for a lay audience because sometimes use of
>> the word 'music' in some cases causes more angst than clarification.
>> All good pragmatic stuff.
>> But are you suggesting we have sound-based sonic art?
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca on behalf of Kevin Austin
>> Sent: Mon 6/21/2010 4:18 PM
>> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
>> Subject: On Sonic Art Musics
>>
>>
>> Perhaps this is why the UK has "Sonic Art[s]" -- no music please,
>> we're British.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Sex_Please,_We're_British
>>
>> FWIW:
>> The original BBC Radio 4 production of The Hitchhiker's Guide To
>> The Galaxy mentions that Zaphod Beeblebrox appeared in "No Sex
>> Please, We're Amoeboid Zingatularians" at the Brantisvogan Starhouse.
>>
>>
>> On 2010, Jun 21, at 9:01 AM, John Young wrote:
>>
>>> I don't find a note-based and sound-based music differentiation
>>> particularly convincing, partly because the word 'music' is common
>>> to both.
>>
>> <winmail.dat>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 22 2010 - 10:43:45 EDT