Subject: Prix Ars '99 bigotry
From: Larry Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 22 1999 - 13:55:38 EST
> my understanding of the change in this category is that the organizers
> wanted to expand the scope of it to include sound works and music that
> might not necessarily fall under the "electroacoustic" and "computer music"
> rubrics as they are generally used (or at least generally percieved).
> while i can't speak for the festival, i don't believe that the kind of work
> that larry austin describes is excluded from consideration.
Yes, I think I understand. HOWEVER, the report of the judging panel for the
1998 Prix, published in the book that followed, presented a polemical
statement by the panel that berated "computer music" (their designation
in the competition) as "an outmoded '60's term gone out of vogue." They
go on: "There were a large number of entries in the Computer Music
Section this time and, despite the forceful statements over recent years,
the majority of works submitted were once again, 'tape' pieces which
primarily represented the male academia with little racial or gender
diversity." I consider this statement as radically unfair, both in terms
of the male gender nd of composer-academics, in particular. Should there,
by inference, be a "quota" of males or females submitting or a ban
on tape pieces in the competition. I note that, notwithstanding, the
1998 panel awarded some prizes to "male", tape music composers.
Seems to be hyprocrisy here.
"Digital Musics" will attract more female composer submissions?
"Digital Musics" will bridge the gender gap?
So...I await a response from Gabi Winkler...explaining this
seemingly innocuous change of terminology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:08:52 EDT