Subject: Re: art not music -- for the sake of discussion
From: Kevin Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 11:18:30 EST
I disagree (for the sake of discussion) ...
Neither rhythm nor harmony have been delimited. By "rhythm" do you
mean metric structures (see Kontakte for comparison); by "harmony" do
you mean simultaneities that are perceived as 'integrated' entities
and interpreted within a hierarchical framework?
At 11:02 AM -0500 2/24/05, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> 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 see rhythm and harmony as evident in many ea works, yet the handeling of
>them is different.
Different from ... music? Would this not be a matter of perception
and interpretation? If a listener is not attuned to tonal / modal
harmonic functions, then the vertical sonorities will not 'function'
in the tonal sense, and the "harmony" may be perceived as being
spectral in nature.
>They are implicit, not explicit.
Are you proposing an underlying grid of metric and harmonic function
that may not be perceptible? I would see this as a very 'musical'
device, frequently characteristic of tonal counterpoint.
>Is the rhythm the backbone that everything is laid on, does it
>function so that the harmonic structure comes back to realign itself
>with the rhythm after (possibly) straying away from the tempo,
>pulse, accentatuion pattern?
IMV (for the sake of discussion), these are 'musical' issues, not ea
matters. Harmony and rhythm (sic) being matters of music theory not
within the art of electroacoustics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST