Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
From: macCormac (macCormac@shaw.ca)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 04:33:36 EST


rn wrote:

musique plastique! fantastique!
acousmatics; "musique concrète all grown up"

BRAVO :-) macCormac

Rick wrote:

> If you mean; is it a plastic art, like painting and sculpture, yes it
> is. It is a time based, plastic art that uses sound. (IMO)
>
> Does that exempt it from being music?
>
> It probably depends upon the composer. The work I just finished is
> definitely "music". The works I did last year may not have been. I
> doubt the one I'm trying to finish now will be for sure. The
> techniques and thinking used were very much the same, although the
> sources had a lot to do with the outcome. I can only speak from the
> experience in the act of creating them.
>
> In the same way, most of the statements I see below are well thought
> out indications of the author's personal intent in his own art,... umm
> I mean music.
>
> Does EA "exclude" rhythm and harmony? I don't think so. I think EA has
> so many possibilities from which form can be derived that harmony and
> rhythm are now just a subset of the composable sound world.
>
> I'm not of the opinion that either music or art or EA are actually
> languages, although I suspect that there's a lot of overlap with
> artistic discourse and linguistic discourse.
>
> Rick
>
> PS of course, I'm really only talking about my own relationship to it.
> You could take a thousand different stances, and still do
> good/great/bad/mediocre/brown/square/evil/sociopathic/heavenly/funny/hot/salty/chickenskin
> work(s). After forty years, Schaeffer decided that he hadn't found a
> way through to music. He relegated musique concrète to the domain of
> sculpture and painting. He continued to call it musique concrète
> though.
>
> rn
>
> musique plastique! fantastique!
> acousmatics; "musique concrète all grown up"
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:21:38 -0500, Kevin Austin
> <kevin.austin@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > This is being cross-posted from <eamt> to both <eamt> and <cec-conference>.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> >
> > >Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:01:40 -0500
> > >From: andre_mc@alcor.concordia.ca
> > >Subject: Ea: art, not music
> > >
> > >This topic was broached, yet not actually discussed in any detail.
> >
> > Ok. Here's a golden opportunity.
> >
> > >Obviously this is divisive subject,
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > >we are in a music program (at Concordia) as it is and many will
> > >simply take that as being the answer to whether or not
> > >electroacoustics is music or art.
> >
> > It is art. Read on.
> >
> > >Some will also say that they are one and the same. THis I don't
> > >believe to be true.
> >
> > They certainly aren't the same.
> >
> > >Music and Art are not the same (IMO) they follow different paths.
> >
> > One being temporal and one being based around (non-timebased) visual
> > perception, with the exception of sculpture.
> >
> > >Music has at its core a language that is not translateable to ea.
> >
> > There may be some possibilities of borrowings, and electroacoustic
> > music is the hybrid of music and electroacoustics.
> >
> > >Ea has at its core, no specific language (or one that is very limited).
> >
> > I think one can draw from the experience of a granite monument where
> > the object can be understood as being that which it is not -- the
> > parts excluded from inclusion.
> >
> > >The fact that ea is sound based is the link between the two, this
> > >leads to the understanding of ea as music.
> >
> > Possibly not. Where the two intersect in sound would be considered
> > electroacoustic music. (This term produced 80,700 hits on Google.)
> >
> > >... (IMO), the understanding of ea as music constrains it to
> > >be time based, which while true does not allow it to function
> > >completely as a seperate art form.
> >
> > There is no problem for me in having multiple time-based art forms.
> > Theater, cinema, mobiles and sculpture are all time-based art forms
> > and one would not be likely to confuse mobiles and music.
> >
> > >If the context of music is taken out of ea
> >
> > But ea is a language, not constrained by the historical
> > considerations related to music.
> >
> > >then ea can function as a much greater entity, an entity that allows
> > >for understanding not simply on a sonic level, it can in the end
> > >function more closely to the visual art domain
> >
> > I feel that this is too broad a use of the term "visual art"s, but
> > would propose that ea functions more closely to abstract visual art,
> > one not dependent upon 'objects' and objectification of objects.
> >
> > The purest abstract art is like the purest electroacoustic art, not
> > beholding to anyone or anything, except itself.
> >
> > Electroacoustics is a language that excludes music and sounds derived
> > from musical traditions. Beats, notes, harmony and melody have no
> > real place in electroacoustics. To find out how to work with beats
> > and metric structures, notes (pitches and pitch classes), harmony and
> > pitch simultaneities in equal temperament, the place to study this is
> > in a music composition class.
> >
> > While it is not too easy to state the internal limits of ea, as noted
> > above, it is pretty straightforward to denote those things that don't
> > fit, and a re-prioritization of those that are common between music,
> > electroacoustic music and electroacoustic art. Similarly, it is
> > possible to delimit those areas that fall outside of ea-art into
> > radiophonic art, soundscaping, audio and installation art.
> >
> > A central premise of ea-art is that of 'timbre and gesture'. Of these
> > two, IMV, gesture is the more central. In general, the identity of a
> > work will not be lost with shifts in timbre and spectral content.
> > Proof of this is that a piece can be played through a wide range of
> > sound systems and remain the same (identifiable) piece, but to flip a
> > gesture (ie, play it backwards), or displace it in relation to other
> > sounds may quickly lead to its loss of identity.
> >
> > Electroacoustic art is about the invention of sounds, sound objects
> > and new, unrealized relationships. The musique concret school got it
> > wrong when they failed to work towards the invention of new sounds
> > rather than the collaging and re-contextualization of existing sounds.
> >
> > >thougths? arguements? anything.
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Andrew McCallum
> > >almaudio@videotron.ca
> >
>
> --
> Rick Nance
> De Montfort University
> Leicester, UK
> RickNance.org
> Acousmatics



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST