Subject: Re: Prix Ars '99 bigotry
From: Larry Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 26 1999 - 06:49:01 EST
> Dear Mr. Austin,
> I talked again with the organizers of Prix Ars Electronica and they told me
> that they will not cancel computer music and it is not a question of gender.
Thank you very much for your response. I am gratified that the organizers
of Prix Ars Electronica still recognize the continuing contribution to
science and art that practitioners of "computer music" have been creating
since the early 'sixties, including the seminal work of scientist Max
Mathew and composer-researchers like Jean-Claude Risset, Laurie Spiegel, John
Chowning, and so many others since.
> The reason is that the computer has become a leading medium. These
> developements require a redefinition of the Prix Ars Electronica Music
> category that has existed since 1987 and a reorientation from a competition
> category focussed exclusively on computer music to one that provides a
> common plattform for myriad forms of sound experiments an what is happening
> in music today.
> The new category is open for:
> 1.) Computer Compositions
> 2.) Sound and Media
> 3.) Electronica
> So, I only can tell you that your compositions are welcome in our
> I am sorry for the inconvenience in the new category .
This is much clearer than in the "Digital Musics" call for submissions,
which did not use the term "computer music". I appreciate the
> All the best
> Gabi Winkler
> Team Prix Ars Electronica
> Digital Musics
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Larry Austin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> An: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Datum: Montag, 22. Februar 1999 23:36
> Betreff: Prix Ars '99 bigotry
> >edo wrote:
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> that larry austin describes is excluded from consideration.
> >Yes, I think I understand. HOWEVER, the report of the judging panel for
> >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.
> >Larry Austin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:08:52 EDT