Subject: Roy's L'analyse de la musique electroacoustique
From: Ian Stewart (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 08:11:45 EST
Louis Dufort writes:
> I'm referring mainly to Stephane Roy's book "L'analyse des musiques
> Ã©lectroacoustique" where he make an interesting description of musical
> function based on perception. He use 4 big categories of function: 1.
> Orientation (intro, conclusion, suspension, transition, release...)
> 2.Stratification (to hard to translate here) 3. Processus (accumulation,
> acceleration, dispersion...) 4. Rhetoric (call/answer, theme/variation,
> affirmation, imitation...).
'Stratification' n'a pas besoin de traduction- it's the same word in English
(and this category includes functions such as Figure, Foreground, and
Background). 'Processus' is 'Process'. Roy also divides the Rhetoric
category into two subcategories: Relational Rhetoric (Statement/Reminder,
Call/Answer, Theme/Variation) and Ruptural Rhetoric (which includes the
Deflection (from Meyer), Parenthesis, and the Sign function, applied when a
sound suggests a real-world source). Note that English versions of Roy's
work exist in issues of Organised Sound and in the Journal of New Music
Research, although I don't have the references in front of me. The English
journal articles pre-date the (French-only) book, and they do differ
somewhat from the book (they list a slightly different set of functions, for
a start). Presumably the book (and PhD thesis) is the authoritative source.
> So the code is the one perceived by the "average listener" intended from the
> composer or not.
I think Roy's functional analysis is interesting, but I'm not sure that
Roy's functions constitute a strongly signifying code, nor do I thnk it
speaks specifically about electroacoustics- the theory is applicable to any
teleological art form.
all the best,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST