Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Kevin Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:30:36 EST
I would ask those who use the term ea to 'define' it in some way. I
have provided a specific but very wide definition. When I read the
postings here, I sometimes think of the mute giving directions to the
My proposition is that ea is not a genre, and ask that perhaps a
better set of terms be found to speak about pieces that go from
Presque Rien to Silver Apples of the Moon to I of IV (Oliveros).
At 05:20 -0800 2005/11/05, bill thompson wrote:
>i wonder if the issue really is that ea, at least in academic
>circles/world is now a genre,
>much as any other music style,
IME (and the model I propose) with ea, the terms "music" and 'style'
may not be fully applicable.
What aspects of Presque Rien are 'more' musical than the RTE
'reading' (sic) of Circe, the Nighttown Episode (XV) -- including the
extensive use of vocoding (a short example is at 28:47 in the radio
program), reverberation / echo effects (30:27- 31:10, 32:54 - 33:26,
36:34 - 36:55, "the word!" 38:48 - 38:57, 39:56 - 40:14; etc) --
>my own frustration though is when this idea of it being a
>genre/style is not recognized or when/if ea is tauted as the
>supreme/ultimate form of electronic/computer based musics. it's not.
>it's just one branch. it's a good branch, well developed, lots of
>intelligence within the work, but sometimes i feel a bit myopic.
I continue to get the sense that your use of the word "ea" relates to
the acousmatic tradition, for which I might suggest a quick reading
(!!0 of Francois Bayle "musique acousmatique, propositions ...
positions" INA-GRM 1993.
EARs seems not to give any detailed explanations of a number of terms
found in this book).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST