Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
torchia@buffalo.edu
Date: Thu Jul 22 2004 - 20:02:08 EDT


So without precise (and therefore necessarily inaccurate) aesthetic
taxonomy, there will be no late 20th/21st Century Music texts or
classes? Who controls contemporary arts: current artists or future
scholars?

History happens, regardless of whether we have neat and tidy names to go
with all the amorphous and uncatagorizable events and ideas it
generated. Let's not delude future generations by pretending everything
fit into nice discrete cultural cubbyholes.

--Ryan.

Quoting Michael Gogins <gogins@pipeline.com>:

> 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