Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
gogins@pipeline.com
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 14:36:47 EDT


This is interesting....

Another distinction becomes important here. It is possible to innovate in
the artistic form or content of a work, without innovating in the
algorithms used to realize the work. (It could still be computer music --
the creator could still BE ABLE to change the algorithms, but choose not
to.)

However, I think most art historians would agree that eras of significant
artistic innovation also tend to innovate in the technology used to realize
the works. That is certainly true of computer music. And I would say that
this period of creativity is far from over, that a first phase has ended
and a second phase is beginning.

For example, in the 12th through 14th centuries European musicians were
innovating not only in creating original pieces, but they also invented
counterpoint and harmony, which constitute a profound change in the
technology of music making, which in turn made further artistic innovations
possible (from Bach to Wagner).

I call it technology because it isn't just people singing and playing, it
involves rules which are algorithms, and because it also involved changes
in instruments to facilitate the new styles.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: lawrence casserley leo@chiltern.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:08:26 +0100
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap

On 5 Aug, 2004, at 14:30, gogins@pipeline.com wrote:

> The key, as I said before, is if the algorithms used to implement the
> work
> of art are the responsibility of the artist.
>

On 5 Aug, 2004, at 13:15, Richard Wentk wrote:

> In a sense no, because it's the gpness of computer music and its
> experimental nature that makes it computer music as opposed to just
> synthesis.
>
> Not that these things have hard edges, but there is a clear stream in
> the electronic arts of creating/innovating/exploring new techniques,
> which is distinct to using them after they've settled into the
> mainstream.
>
Which is really at the heart of all this discussion, isn't it? Where
does "creating/innovating/exploring new techniques" end and
"mainstream" begin? And are creative and innovative things still being
done with it even then? And does the technical exploration make it what
it is?

Fundamentally, I agree with you; I like to think that that is an
important aspect of the music. And this isn't just about computers; I
like art that tries to break new ground in one sense or another; I tend
to get bored with "mainstream" art. But of course, being good at
technical development doesn't make you a good composer; and not being
good at technical development doesn't make you a good composer either!

I don't think i've invented any new algorithms (certainly not synthesis
ones), but I do put things together in my own ways, and I've certainly
come up with some ways of doing things that I haven't seen anyone else
do. Many people making electroacoustic music use programs like CSound
or Max or whatever, and I've heard some pretty non-mainstream music
made with commercial synthesisers/samplers, etc. so it's probably more
a matter of intent. what kind of music are you making and why? But that
doesn't get us any nearer a definition (if that's what we really
want!)...... I suspect that the attempt to do so may be distracting
from real artistic issues; it's always easier to talk about the
technicalities than the aesthetics.

best

L

Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



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