Re: art not music

Subject: Re: art not music
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 13:48:32 EST

Quoting Rick <>:

> They sound musical. There are places where rhythm and harmony exist,
> yet no strict adherence to a particular system. The systems from which
> the work derives does show through, but I hope are sufficiently
> subverted to fit the new form. It is still very much a bottom-up
> approach at the studio level.
> The sources however were traditional musical types, ie. blues,
> baroque, and some free-improv; all guitar.

Thansk that is a clear explanation/analysis.
> But then again, do all "musical" works adhere to an "explicit" rhythm
> and harmony? When you say "rhythm" do you mean tempo? There are many
> rhythms, and variations of those rhythms recur at different tempos at
> different (or simultaneous) moments in the work.

tempo, meter, underlying structural grid

> This work in particular is an example of what I said about dot music
> being just another subset of the ways to organize sound.

The organization of sound, is sort of the key to all of this, my premise being
that an organization of sound does not neccessarily mean music is created.
> When you say "academic based", how is that different from how I
> composed prior to academe when I used drums and tape and bass guitar?
> Or disembodied organ pipes and swimming pool drains?

I made this statement so as to qualify soem of the standpoints I am taking, in
the current academic (student) situation I find myself in, I wonder about the
validity of half of my degree courses being based on music (theory, history,
ear training) in a traditional sense, with very little effort made (in the
majority though not all) in these music courses to address issues that would
be realteable to ea/sonic art, or sound as seperate entity from music.

> What exactly is your current situation? Is it that subset? Some kind
> of dot music or some other system filtered through keyboard layouts?
> Is it voice based? And the patterns you speak of, are they repetitive,
> or complex?

I don't want to imply that these courses have no use to me, nor do I want to
come across as though my expectations for the classes are thhe only ones that
count. It is just in my mind the study of music (dot, or otherwise
traditional) leaves gaps in the education of one intersted in
electroacoustics, and I wonder whether we have classified EA into a corner due
to a close allegiance with music.

If ea is classified as a subset of time based art instead of a subset of music
would there be any difference in it.... probably not, though it might be
taught differently (or from a different stand point).

just questions really


> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:02:35 -0500,
> <> wrote:
> > I would ask your Rick if your "musical" work has ingrained in it a strict
> > adherence to explict rhythm and harmony. 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?
> >
> > Or maybe I should just ask how you come to call your latest work musical?
> >
> > andrew

Andrew McCallum

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