Subject: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
From: Kevin Austin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 11:49:05 EDT
I think there are a number of threads here.
Instrumental music / composition is not in the same environment as
ea. Live theater is not video.
I am not in a position to discuss (or even propose) how "most" of the
audience feels / reacts. Having been involved in the production of
more than 600 ea concerts, I have learned the fearsome lesson of
'generalizations' about individual experiences. I accept that you are
bored, but that is a quite different issue.
At 00:27 -0400 2005/09/14, Louis Dufort wrote:
>I totally agree with you Bill, but I really think that in reality,
>seeing a lot of concert and collecting a lot of impression and
>discussion, most of the audience are bored with our music, I know I
As you pointed out, you are bored. That, IMV, does not make "the ea" boring.
>I think that beneath of it all, the fact that making EA is in a way
>more accessible than instrumental music brings a larger group of
>composer that doesn't have the musical knowledge which sometime can
>be good and refreshing but we still get to hear most of the boring
It is not clear to me why (all) music should be innovative. If the
position you propose is that music should be innovative, this opens
up the idea of what "innovative" means to you.
Written language (and probably life in general) is not innovative;
just about everything is built on memory (and experience). John
Cage's work on chance operations was not new or innovative in a
'global' sense, it was (IMV) more that the west had not been widely
exposed to (or accepting of) the mystical processes that reveal the
unseeable. [Google I ching for history. John Cage said that chance
exists, the iching and many oraclular traditions propose that fate is
fixed and preordained.
Over simplified, within this model of reality, the position you have
found yourself in, boredom with (much new) ea could have been
predicted by someone whose 'oracular insight(s)' are great enough to
see the larger picature.
After 25 years of teaching the same course, there is little that is
"new" or "innovative". But, teaching classes of 25 - 50 students is
not about the discovery of 50 innovative people every year.
As Grand Inquisitor says in the Gondoliers: "When everybody's
somebody, then no one's anybody"?
This fear of loss of personal identity drives some people to more
extreme forms of "innovative" expression, or what they may think of
as new or innovative expression.
>... and the purpose of my "pretension" thread was an attempt to find
>what was lacking in electronic EA composition and my first argument
>was around the sound itself where in the spectral instrumental
>school, most of the composition material comes from the intrinsic of
>the sound while I feel that in EA and electronic music at large take
>it for granted.
I find that there are two issues here being convolved. Instrumental
sounds are of their nature microstructurally complex in a statistical
fashion. It is not possible to duplicate a played note on a piano.
Moreover, the piano is not a point source for sound. Place 12
microphones at or near a piano and play one note. The 12 signals will
have statistical and parametric similarities, but few microstructural
In simpler english ... every time a note is played on a piano, it
sounds different. Every time the same note is played from a digital
memory (wavetable) through a loudspeaker, the signal (at the speaker
terminals) is effectively identical.
Stockhausen pointed this out in Mikrophonie in 1964
http://home.swipnet.se/sonoloco2/Rec/Stockhausen/09.html . While this
may come as 'new' and 'innovative' to a younger generation those who
lived through this period possibly carry different baggage, and
different contexts for the concept of "innovation".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST