Subject: electroacoustics - rap to tap - electronic
From: macCormac (macCormac@shaw.ca)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 22:25:48 EDT
hello CEC / CBC / BBC / ABC / ZBC
i am enjoying this 'dis cussion' :-) ... th 'debate' is interesting... just
can't say anything 'brave / insightful / not so funny ' right now that might
not intrude tho 'acoustic ecology ' rings a bell and a poet by th nom de plume
o Robinson Jeffers . . .
Poet of Stone & Planets:Counter Pastoralism, Inhumanism and Literary Ecology
in the Works of Robinson Jeffers. Owen, Catherine. SFU Masters of English
Berry Wendell. Standing on the Earth: Selected Essays. UK: Bolgoonooxa Press
Branch, Michael P. et al. Reading the Earth: New Directions in the Study of
Literature and the Environment. Idaho: University of Idaho Press, 1998
Buell, Lawrence. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing and the
Formation of American Culture. England: Harvard University Press 1995
Chambers, Edmund K ed. English Pastorals london: Blackie & Sons Ltd. n.d.
Clough, Wilson. O. The Necessary Earth: Nature and Solitude in American
Literature. Austin: University of Texan Press. 1964
Collingwood, R.G. The Idea of Nature. London: Oxford University Press. 1960.
Ehrenfeld, David. The Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elder, John. Imagining the Earth: Poetry and the Vision of Nature. Urbana and
Chicago. University of Illinois Press, 1985
Emerson, Ralph Waldo Emmerson. Nature (1863) New York: Scholar's fascimiles and
Empson, Willima. Some Versions of Pastoral: A Study of the Pastoral Form in
Literature. Great Britain: New Directions, n..d.
Glotflety, Cheryl et al. The Ecocritism Reader: Essays in Literary Ecology.
Georgia University of Georgia Press, 1996
Jeffers, Robinson. The Collected Poetry of Robinson Jeffers, ed. Tim Hunt.
Volume 1-3 (1920-1962) Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1991.
Kerridege, Richard and Neil Sammels. Writing the Environment: Ecocritism and
Literature. London, Penguin Books, 1959.
Leiss, William. The Domination of Nature. Montreal: McGill-Queem's University
Marx, Leo. The Machine in the Garcen: Technology ad the Pastoral Ideal In
America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964
Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. Third Ed. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press. 1967
Nietsche, Freiderich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Thomas Common. New York:
the Modern Library, n.d.
Nolte, William H. Rock and Hawk: Robinson Jeffers and the Romantic Agony.
Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1978.
Olsen, Charles. The Human Universe and Other Essays. New York: Grove Press,
Rosenmayer, Thomas G. The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral
Lyric. Berley: University of California Press, 1969.
Schama, Simon. Landscape and Memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.
Scheese, Don. Nature Writing: The Pastoral Impulse in America. New York: Twayne
Scott, Robert Ian. "Egocentric versus Ecologically Responsable Poetry" in the
robinson Jeffers Newsletter, vol. 62, 1983, 5-6.
Snyder, Gary. The Practice of the Wild. New York: North Point Press, 1990.
William, Raymond. The Country and the City. new York: Oxford University Press,
and i've got to ask when did th 'folks out back' change from calling it
electronic music to electroacoustic music ? was it when the composers /
scientists / technicians / sound poets etc moved from working with synthesized
tones to include environmental recordings of th soundscape ? what is th
earliest known 'utterance' of ' th somewhat verbally and physically 'aWKword'
term ' E-electroacoustic' ? btw, heard any good birds / planets lately ? :-)
best regards, sylvi macCormac
http://www.sylvi.ca / na / da / bc
soundscape & siwash rock
dj serious mc squared
dis abled in vaudeville ;-)
rapper undercover (c)
o th mixing board :-)
day job: identify et arrête o retardé ;-)
la members d www.SOCAN.ca :-)
moonlighting: sly & th family stone
ps are madonna & iriXx awake yet ?
Michael Gogins wrote:
> I did not intend to say art is only biological. In my view the urge to make
> art is biologically rooted, but as I recently noted to Richard Wentk, art
> and fine art are not the same and fine art is pretty much found only in
> civilised societies. I would say that language is biology, poetry is
> biology, but verse plays are society. I would say that singing is biology,
> the symphony orchestra (or tape music) is society.
> I was perhaps being a bit rhetorical. My view on humanity is that human
> biology provides language, social hierarchy, perhaps marriage, art,
> religion, war, and tool-making. This creates a secondary evolutionary
> stratum where artificial selection, a.k.a culture, drives human evolution at
> a much faster pace than natural selection. On top of this I am a
> philosophical theist, so I certainly think that humanity cannot be reduced
> to mechanism or biology.
> I perceive (perhaps wrongly) that a common view among ea musicians is that
> the artistic content and worth of music has no existence aside from
> interpretation and culture. This seems to me to lead to a form of cultural
> relativism that I find untenable and even obnoxious. I feel strongly that
> some music is objectively better than other music and that with good will
> and effort, the music of other places and times can be appreciated for what
> it is.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paulo Mouat" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:34 PM
> Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> > Of course I am not saying that human beings are the only creatures with
> > tradition or language.
> > You separated the social from the biological so vehemently that suddenly
> > certain abilities that evolve because of social interaction seemed to be
> > caused by purely biological (e.g. as to overcome environment challenges)
> > reasons.
> > It is still a long stretch to say that art, language and tradition are
> > biological and not at all social. The biological may enable (or block)
> > faculties that lead to art, language and tradition, but the social is
> > through application, those faculties are ultimately made to evolve -- even
> > influencing the biological.
> > A number of characteristics typically associated with human nature have
> > nothing to do with biology. Social conventions determine and condition
> > certain aspects of human nature. In that sense, there is no direct
> > one-to-one correspondence between human nature and biology, which means
> > human biology does not encompass the whole of human nature and thus you
> > cannot equate the two.
> > //P
> > http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Gogins [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:31 AM
> > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> > >
> > > Language is biological, tradition is biological. Nature is
> > > the object of science. Biology is the science of life
> > > considered as living objects. Human nature is the nature of
> > > those living objects who are human beings, so obviously human
> > > biology is the study of human nature.
> > >
> > > It is clear that language is biological since it evolved, and
> > > depends critically upon a few recent mutations. Some of the
> > > genes responsible for language use have been identified
> > > recently thanks to a family with some language problems in
> > > London who lack those genes.
> > >
> > > Surely you don't suppose human beings are the only creatures
> > > with tradition?
> > > Birds learn certain songs, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, all kinds
> > > of creatures learn important parts of their adaptations from
> > > their parents.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Paulo Mouat" <email@example.com>
> > > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:17 PM
> > > Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> > >
> > >
> > > > Michael Gogins wrote:
> > > > > Since every society has art, it's clear that art is not
> > > > > social but biological or, in other words, part of "human
> > > > > nature." If you could show me a society without art, I'd have
> > > > > to say that art was socially caused, but that's obviously not
> > > > > the case.
> > > >
> > > > Is language biological? Is tradition biological? It's not
> > > clear at all
> > > > that art is biological and since when "part of human
> > > nature" equates to
> > > > "being biological"?
> > > >
> > > > //P
> > > > http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST