Re: Concrete/electroacoustique/art des sons fixes


Subject: Re: Concrete/electroacoustique/art des sons fixes
From: Francis Dhomont (fdhomont@mlink.net)
Date: Wed Oct 13 1999 - 13:30:15 EDT


A carlos, Simon, Roald, et tous ceux que la question intéresse, mais en
français:

Le terme électroacoustique (qui concerne les outils) est, en effet, le
pire. Mais, invariablement, les compositeurs concernés, après avoir
consciencieusement examiné, critiqué, désossé et rejeté, l'un après
l'autre, tous les autres vocables ou expressions, ne parviennent à se
mettre d'accord que sur lui, l'abominable "électroacoustique". Sans doute
parce que, ne voulant rien ou tout dire, il ne contrarie personne. Dernière
tentative en date, la rencontre au GRM, le 28 mai dernier, en vue de
trouver une appellation commune. Sa conclusion : électroacoustique! (un
rapport de la réunion devrait être publié, contacter Daniel Teruggi). Mais
la vie continue.
Vox populi, vox dei!

Que la musique (électro, concrète, acousmatique, fixée, haut-parlante) soit
avec vous, mes frères (et soeurs)!

Amitiés de

                                        Francis

P.S. pour Simon:
>>Je crois surtout que le soleil brille toujours davantage chez le voisin
>Si on habite en ecosse ce n'est pas seulement un figure de style!!!

Bien répondu! Quant à l'aide apportée à la musique par le gouvernement
britannique, il semble, en effet, qu'elle ne soit pas brillante; est-ce
pour cela qu'on rencontre tant de bons compositeurs
(électro-acousmatico-concrets???) dans cette partie du monde?...

>Simon Atkinson à dit à ÒRe: A Musicology of Ea/CmÓ.
>[1999/10/13Wed 15:55]
>
>>
>> J'ai une petite question pour les gens francophone...
>> Excusez mon ignorance, mais c'etait quand exactement que le monde
>> francophone a jete l'expression "musique concrete" et adopte le
>> mot (le mot horrible...) electroacoustique? Et comment et pourquoi?
>> C'etait autour de les pensees de les compositeurs de le GRM?
>> (J'ai consulte une dictionaire, Larousse, de les annees 50's et il
>> y a une bonne definition de "Acousma" mais pour "electroacoustique"
>> un truc a propos de transmission du son, electromagnetisme, comment
>> marcher l'hautparler blah blah)
>>
>> Et c'est vrai que le seul autre propostion en francais est "L'Art
>> du Sons Fixees" de M. Chion?
>>
>> (Et bien sur, excusez mon mauvais francias. J'essaie!...)
>>
>
>This message is in English because I prefer to answer in Simon Atkinson's
>mother language but my mother language is indeed French.
>
>As far as I know, "electroacoustique" comes from Stockhausen's "Gesang der
>Junglinge" because it used both synthesized and natural sounds. So it
>*might* be seen as a synthesis between the electronic approach and the one
>of musique concrete, even if this infers a completely false idea of what
>concrete music is. So using "electroacoustique" allows one to remain
>outside of the debates between "musique concrete", "acousmatique" and "art
>des sons fixes". So it is right that "electroacoustique" means absolutely
>nothing when speaking about aesthetics.
>
>I think the "musique concrete" designation really lost some importance
>again at the beginning of the seventies (around 1974) when François Bayle
>began to speak about "acousmatique". Acousmatique is not tied so much with
>the idea of "ecoute réduite" (reduced listening?) as "musique concrete" is,
>plays more with the ambiguities between the different levels of perception
>and doesn't reject the idea of listening the sound as a clue to recognize a
>source ALSO. The idea of "image de son" (picture of sound?) is also born in
>this period. With acousmatique came a conscious use of archetypes. At the
>same time, Guy Reibel introduced the idea of "energies sonores" and
>"sequences-jeu" because he had enough of the aesthetics of "collage". I
>think these "energies sonores" are one of the first serious attempt to
>establish clear categories of musical sounds beyond the scope of the
>"objets sonores" (sound objects?) and mostly beyond the idea of "objets
>convenables" (suitable sound objects) which Schaeffer used to distinguish
>between "good" and "bad" sounds you might use to compose (Schaeffer's "Le
>Triedre Fertile" gives a good idea of what this limitation led to). These
>"energies sonores" are more directly musical. With acousmatique came also
>the idea of "projection", changing the way the concerts were thought. So, I
>think all these reasons led to an art different from the "musique concrete"
>made in the fifties or the sixties.
>
>So, you may say the reasons are both historical and stylistic.
>
>Some composers like Michel Chion still claim to compose "musique concrete"
>today and his arguments must be interesting but I don't know them.
>
>To me "Art des sons fixes" (invented by Michel Chion) is more neutral
>between "musique concrete" and "acousmatique", but it is still more precise
>than "electroacoustique" because is makes a difference between the work on
>recorded sound and the work with instruments and electronics.
>
>Today, some young composers do not want to use the "acousmatique"
>designation because they think is it too much associated with the GRM but I
>think it would be a big mistake to drop this name.
>
>Roald Baudoux

Francis Dhomont
5316, avenue Decelles
Montréal, Qc
CANADA H3T 1V8
Tel & Fax: + 1 514 345 8063



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:10 EDT