Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Thu Jul 22 2004 - 19:43:56 EDT


Scholars abominate ambiguity in discourse, except perhaps to cheat in
rhetoric. A precise taxonomy of style will be necessary in a future history
of contemporary music. Many artists too prefer precision in some contexts,
while of course ambiguity has its uses in others.

----- Original Message -----
From: <torchia@buffalo.edu>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap

> Forgive my bewilderment on the topic, but What is with this insatiable
> need to invent a context-independent, quantifiable set of criteria for
> what is or isn't 'Computer Music?' The ambiguity is really as
> beneficial as it is harmful, and is easily overcome in basic conversation.
>
> "Computer Music" can mean anything that involves computers at all. Yes,
> this is a valid definition, but of little use realistically. "Computer
> Music" can mean anything where the computer has a substantial effect on
> the final outcome, meaning everything from 'Different Trains' to 'The
> Rockafella Skank.' "Computer Music" can be also be used to refer to a
> specific musical aesthetic arising from the capabilities and limitations
> of the medium (like Risset, Matthews, the Columbia-Princeton crowd,
> etc.). The definition is going to vary a bit depending on if you're
> talking to John Chowning, Jim O'Rourke or Jerry Springer. If clarity of
> meaning is really an issue, add an extra word or two to the term, or
> give a couple examples. Rare is the person who will think "Early
> Computer Music" means the buzzing of their alarm clock.
>
> I mean, realistically, even the term 'computer' becomes a bit fuzzy in
> the world of music. What is the distinction between a synthesizer and a
> computer? Even an amplifier uses ICs now, so are they computers?
>
> --Ryan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "Mauricio Duarte-Neira (039166d)" <039166d@acadiau.ca>:
>
> > Anything that plays digitally can be considered computer music?
> > Or computer music would be computer generated and manipulated >
> sound/silence, etc...?
> > what about a computer that has an AI to make up melodies giving it
> > the > chords, will that be computer music?
> > What if I take a bunch of computers and hit them as a drum set, can I
> > > call that computer music too? :)
> >
> > (Does anyone know of a program that can figure out melodies given the
> > > chords? I believe the latest "Band in a box" can do that. I Would
> > like > to see how it does it).
> >
> > Mauricio
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca on behalf of Stephen David
> > Beck
> > Sent: Wed 7/21/2004 6:56 PM
> > To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> > Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't say that there was no _need_ for the term "computer music."
> > I
> > was arguing that the term has lost its meaning in our contemporary
> > context. It will always retain its historical meaning.
> >
> > There's so much {DSP/phase vocoder/spectral shaping/you name it} in
> > pop
> > music these days, it's impossible to say that pop music isn't
> > "computer
> > music." But clearly, the "computer music" of Beyonce or Britney
> > Spears
> > is not the computer music of Charles Dodge, John Pierce or John
> > Chowning.
> >
> > We are simply unable to apply a 1960's definition to a 21st century
> > context. Our language must catch up to our art.
> >
> > On Jul 21, 2004, at 4:27 PM, gogins@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> > > Just because most music people now listen to is made using
> > computers,
> > > that
> > > by no means implies there is no need for the term "computer music."
> > >
> > > There is still a huge difference between the stylistic
> > possibilities
> > > open
> > > to music made with computers versus music not so made. Therefore, >
> music
> > > historians of the future will need this term to adequately deal
> > with
> > > the
> > > changes in music after 1958, even if all the music they listen to
> > in
> > > their
> > > own time is made with computers and not called "computer music" by
> > the
> > > general public or even contemporary critics.
> >
> > =========================> ======
> > Stephen David Beck, Ph.D.
> > Interim Director, Laboratory for Creative Arts & Technologies
> > Center for Computation and Technology (CCT)
> > 3rd Floor, Johnston Hall
> > Louisiana State University
> > Baton Rouge, LA 70803
> >
> > w: http://www.lcat.lsu.edu/
> > e: sdbeck at lsu dot edu
> > p: (225) 578-2594
> > im: sdbeck
> > tm: 2252840124 at tmomail dot net
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:03 EST