Re: art not music

Subject: Re: art not music
From: Rick (
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 14:13:19 EST

The problem, as always, comes in classification. Maybe not so much
that, as classification and exclusion.

At my university, studying music at the undergraduate level, we had to
take music courses. Theory, 16th century counterpoint, figured bass,
instrumental lessons, keyboard, voice and on and on.

We also weren't allowed to take a composition class without the
prerequisties of a year plus in theory, and ... (something else I
think, can't remember) Our profs got us around some of this in the
technology courses by making it practice based, so we wrote EA (mostly

The thing is, it was a music course. So we take music classes.

>> tempo, meter, underlying structural grid

what about meter-less grids? say, a piece in one measure 500 beats
long? jess messin...

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:48:32 -0500,
<> wrote:
> >
> 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.

That's what Schaeffer said. I think the jury's still out on that and
may have gone on holiday while no one was looking

> > 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?

So your current situation is paper music? I can think that it would
be another way of dealing with time, and that can be useful. there's a
long, long lnogolngolognglgog history of how it's been dealt with to
date, so looking through it can't hurt. Seems a shame sometimes though
don't it? I think a few places teach harmony as a part of their music
history courses.

Something ealier was said about sculpture being time based. Was that
referring to something in particular? Not bas relief or marble people
or brass 3D? noyes? I don't get it.


> 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).

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