Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap
From: Kevin Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2004 - 07:53:31 EDT
You do understand.
At 10:46 +0100 2004/07/19, Richard Wentk wrote:
>Film and video are terms that are widely understood and accepted by
>anyone who's familiar with them.
Are film and cinema synonyms? Video and television?
>But the 'electroacoustic' word most certainly doesn't mean what
>you're claiming it means
My proposition is not a claim, but on Saturday night, ...
"Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to
mean--neither more nor less. Alice: The question is, whether you can
make a word mean so many different things. Humpty Dumpty: The
question is, which is master?"
>Otherwise it's like claiming that all film is really TV just because
>most people watch it at home.
I try not to make claims about "reality".
>It's the means of *production* - the focus of creative effort - that
>defines a medium. Distribution and reproduction are comparatively
The importance of the printing press, the (telegraph) / telephone /
television have had profound impact on the focus of creative
production. The loudspeaker has (also) allowed for 'on-demand'
narrowcasting of auditory information -- in the twentieth century,
this altered the way sound could be handled in time.
>Even in pop the original production tradition is one based on
>recording an acoustic performance,
This was (part of) the original intention of photography, film and
recording. With the introduction of the editing suite, the emphasis
was allowed to drift from performer to producer.
>and any manipulation that takes place is subservient to that goal.
Or perhaps (eg Phil Spector) integral to it.
>Today the real medium of pop isn't sonic manipulation for its own
>creative sake - which is what EA is about -
I accept your definition of ea -- I use a different set of labels.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST