Re: Lack of clarity regarding the term EA


Subject: Re: Lack of clarity regarding the term EA
n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 02:12:25 EST


Quoting Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@videotron.ca>:

> Again, I think the point is being missed. The term 'ea' is not being
> given limits, it has become some kind of meta-symbol for sound. It
> appears that you (Nick) wish to continually define / redefine the
> term ea, making for a "glory" of a dialog.

The point is definately being missed. My point is to somehow express the term
EA in a manner general enough to satisfy most people's notion of what it is.
The point is not to dictate a definition for the term so that everyone can
follow, although that would be a good idea for the purpose of discussion.
>
> Later here you redefine ea as:
 
> >I understand EA as sound-based understanding.
>
> Huh? Sorry, but I see this as an operational definition where the
> term assumes (for the moment) whatever seems not to be clear."EA"
> has ceased to have a meaning associated with events / activities /
> forms / structures / sounds, but becomes a convenient "hip" term to
> throw in when something is not clear.

No appologies necessary, but I (nick) believe that previous posts explain why I

came up with this "hip" understanding. "I understand EA as" does
not really anounce a definition IMV, nor does it pressure others to understand
it as I do. What it does is merely offer my point of view and encourage others
to reply with theirs, which in turn may influence mine.

>
> From my readings, you (Nick) are proposing that electroacoustics
> existed before electricity could be transduced into sound. If this is
> so, then we stand very very far apart on what is under discussion.

First off, the electricity within us can be tranduced to sound, and we all know
how this can be done (clap, stomp, scream, etc).
Secondly, if you don't consider the energy within us "electricity", then you
can still consider the fact that there are times when the artist can already
hear the EA composition in his/her head before actually physically hearing it.
Hence, EA composition without the transduction of electricity. If you hear an
EA piece in your dream, is it still EA?

If you want to stick with the EA= anything that comes from a loudspeaker
definition, then I can dig it. But, as you know, there is another term EA that
would still need defining, the one that is usually dubbed "a genre of music". I
have tried in previous posts to spread the notion that perhaps music is a genre
of EA instead, and I have tried to provide valid arguments to back this up.

I hope that I have clarified my intentions/position, but I'll keep trying if I
have to.

By the way, out of curiosity, If you (Kevin) didn't think I was discussing EA,
what did you think I was discussing?

nick

>
>
> At 18:59 -0500 2005/02/28, n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca wrote:
> >Quoting Eliot Handelman <eliot@generation.net>:
> >
> >> Music isn't about sound so much as recog.
> >
> >Exactly. It is about the recognition of sounds; much like speach,
> >much less like dreams. What do we call the understanding of an
> >unrecogniseable sound? Could we call that EA? And could we, based on
> >previous posts, call music and speach forms of EA too?
> >
> >Should we find a better word than EA to represent all this?
>
> IMV, you may want to find a better term as from my point of view you
> have not been discussing ea.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Kevin
>

-- 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:07 EST