Evolution of vocabulary


Subject: Evolution of vocabulary
From: Kevin Austin (kevin.austin@videotron.ca)
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 22:58:48 EDT


As the author points out, with large populations.

Is the part of the ea community involved in the evolution of
descriptive languages "large"? One term has been 'put in place' --
electroacoustic, but even this is not shared widely ... with or
without hyphen, with or without the work "music".

How about "computer music"?

I would propose a quick look at:
http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=36
to see where things are (may be) in the rest of the world.

Read some of the definitions:
http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=168

And from an EARS founder himself, about the state of the discipline:

(to summarize: one would expect that the publication of scholarly
studies should be commonplace by now, more than half a decade after
its birth. Nothing is further from the truth.)

http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/notes/v060/60.1landy.html&session=30594467

Landy, Leigh 1951- "Electroacoustic Music: Analytical Perspectives (review)"
Notes - Volume 60, Number 1, September 2003, pp. 162-163
Music Library Association

Excerpt

The publication of a book within the broad field of electroacoustic
music studies is always something to celebrate. Given the paradigm
shift this music represents, and the impact it has had on many other
forms of music, one would expect that the publication of scholarly
studies should be commonplace by now, more than half a decade after
its birth. Nothing is further from the truth. The arrival of the new
title, Electroacoustic Music: Analytical Perspectives, generated much
initial excitement. The review that follows includes some
reservations, however, that deserve a contextual explanation.

There are two key issues that are often worrisome about theoretical
and, in particular, critical texts concerning electroacoustic music.
They tend to be written for very knowledgeable specialists, and they
tend to be more focused on sonic construction or a composer's
theoretical concepts than, say, the listening experience. The first
issue is problematic, as it seems to celebrate the fact that the
music addressed is one primarily situated within a community of
specialists, with little to no impact within the cultural worlds at
large. This type of literature seems to avoid seeking any connection
with social response. There is, of course, a place for specialist
scholarship, but I have found that these discussions tend to focus on
structure or formal development of material (e.g., serialism) as
opposed to textural development (e.g., Denis Smalley's
spectro-morphology) and spatialization, the two aspects of
electroacoustic music that are perhaps most revolutionary. What I
would have hoped to see in this new...

I can understand Leigh's disappointment. From my quick reading of
parts it has more to do with the continuation of the european
(post)modernist tradition (sic), than electroacoustics, as I use the
word.

Best

Kevin

At 17:20 -0700 2005/10/16, Eliot Handelman wrote:
>Kevin Austin wrote:
>
>>
>>This is about much 'notation'.
>
>
>Sorry, wrong analogy. This is about the spontaneous development of a
>shared descriptive language.
>
>A recent experiment purports to show how shared vocabulary
>spontaneously evolves -- and
>I capitalize: WITHOUT ANY CENTRAL CONTROL..
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509075
>
>The authors conclude:
>
>
>"This surprising result not only explains why human language can
>scale up to very large populations but also suggests ways to
>optimize artificial semiotic dynamics."
>
>(A lot of work in computational linguistics has gone into this area.)
>
>-- eliot



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST