Re: "small" audiences


Subject: Re: "small" audiences
From: KEVIN AUSTIN (KAUSTIN@vax2.concordia.ca)
Date: Mon Aug 02 1999 - 10:11:51 EDT


 Miriam Rainsford <motet@compuserve.com> continued ...
>
>Larry Austin wrote:

>>> Ea/cm is perceived by us, perhaps, >as an artform of small, select
>>>audiences. >That's understandable, since our music is >music of the
>>>"laboratory" and needs to be >"tested" in non-hostile gatherings first by
>>>our friends and fellow practitioner-experimenters >before being accepted
>>>for the next larger >audience...say the ICMC (where audiences >have been
>>>in the hundreds, even thousands

>There is the larger venue of compact disc >sales, where our successful
"experiments" can reach >thousands--with repeated listenings!! And radio,
>the web, of course.

As I recall, the original posting was regarding a live festival, and
related directly to the "quality" of the public presentation / reception,
considering the resources put into the production.

This ties in again with, IMV, ongoing discussions about competitions and
festivals, and who does, and who can go etc etc.

>>>Don't be sad. Acoustic music has the same >process of testing,
>>>acceptance, and broader >success. It works. <<

>I disagree that you can classify those of us who are fortunate to have
>a recording contract as successful "experiments" and therefore better
>music, as if it was a process of natural selection. Surely a lot of very
>good ea/cm works never make it to recording and "repeated listenings", as
>this is not an area which is known to be commercially successful, and
>recording companies largely will award contracts not on the basis of what
>is groundbreaking new music but what is likely to sell. I cannot see that
>you could classify those works as a distillation of the best new music has
>to offer simply because they have been fortunate to appear in a commercial
>CD format!

>Miriam Rainsford
>motet@compuserve.com

Miriam, and Larry, make many important points ... but there is still the
comparison on 'live performance' and 'recorded distribution'. This
discussion has been present in many eras of transformation. Theater and
film were once 'live performance' and 'recorded distribution' forms. The
prize for a successful play was a publishing contract: ipso facto with a
successful piece.

Some plays made their way into film, but, if I've got it right, cinema
eventualy became an independent, and more successful[!??] medium. McLuhan
spoke of the "medium being the message", and the recorded medium goes out
directly to "the global village" (another McLuhan'ism).

Live "festivals" of tape music may be becoming (or already have become?)
anacronistic. How many sonic webzines are there? How many people are able
to hear the work(s) presented? What are the resource implications of
mounting one week-long festival for 150 people (?) compared to mounting
these pieces on the ether for several thousands to hear over a period of
many years?

There are those who feel that the "selection" process for festivals /
competitions may have political [sic] implications ... which is why
people need to meet privately to decide which of the guys will get to be
heard this year. Or least that is what I think I've continued to read lately.

Ah the dog-days ... peace and lawn mowers!

Best

Kevin
kaustin@vax2.concordia.ca



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:05 EDT