OT: electroacoustic composition: more concept than content?

[Sartori]

My yardstick for music and art appreciation is fairly simple: if I can appreciate that something took some skill to achieve, whether it be in writing, performing or even just coming up with a concept, then I can appreciate it even if I don't like it. If I think it took little or no skill, I'm fairly dismissive of it.

So a really well crafted Beatles song, a Mozart symphony, a Goya or Dali painting, a Rodin or a Michelangelo statue, all of these are things I enjoy as art. They all have an obvious element of skill involved at various levels.

Things I can appreciate but dislike include artists or composers like Frank Zappa, Harrison Birtwhistle, Matisse, Damien Hirst. I can tell that there may be skill involved, and appreciate that, but I don't like the results.

Things I can't appreciate, well, I may get strung up for this now... Autechre, Boards of Canada, in fact most glitchy stuff, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Pollock, Tracy Emin. Stuff where skill and random crap are hard to tell apart, and you only have someone's word that it's meant to be that way, or things that are only art because the person who made them has an art degree (and would be ignored if an identical thing was produced by someone else)

I know people will disagree with that, it's just how I consider things. It's not an absolute value judgement - I'm not saying Autechre or Piet Mondrian are rubbish. Just that I can't enjoy or appreciate their work.

[dj superflat]

i've gotta agree: without intentionality, some sense that there's a human with a message to get across, i have trouble calling it art, though it might be found art. not that any artist should care about my or any one else's judgment (and i realize it's somewhat reactionary). i also tend to like art with constraints, to see how the artists plays with them, pushes against them. formless art tends not to fit for me. that said, i like all sorts of stuff that contravenes my "rules."

[b0unce]

Tracy Emin is a stupid bitch, proof that the art world is full of shit for the most part.

You present a turd in a box. Now, the spiel you attach is what makes it art.
say nothing and its just a turd in a box. Or just channel your neurosis into a few paragraphs of wishy washy musings, and hey-presto its art.

The art college in my town is so mickey mouse its unreal. My friends made a farce out of the place, one girl got a piece of blank paper and blew some bubbles onto it - all she did was bullshit for 10 minutes (without being obvious, i.e. shes a good liar/bullshitter) and she got honors. The rest of the time we drank buckfast and smoked waterfalls.


at least in better art colleges, you need to be better at bullshitting - thats the real art form.

[dataspore]

one girl got a piece of blank paper and blew some bubbles onto it - all she did was bullshit for 10 minutes (without being obvious, i.e. shes a good liar/bullshitter) and she got honors.

college = life skills

[evernaut]

yes the PRS in the UK are desperate to hadn over cash to electronic artists.

Why? Can you give us an example?

If you merely use electronic equipment and make appealing music you wont get a cent. If you make music that appeals to academia and incorporate video they will gladly hand over cash.

This translates to me as "if you just fuck about with beats & stuff on your computer, and make some dance tracks you should get money for it".

Why should you? And what do you mean by "appealing"?

And what makes you think that the PRS are in some sort of conspiracy with the world of academia?

I dont have a problem with supporting any music but I do have a problem with popular styles being disregarded.
So yes its academia over content

While it would seem that you're basically supporting my assertion that some of the best work in this field is possibly being done outside the institutions, I find myself disagreeing with your reasons for agreeing.

[Benshik]

My yardstick for music and art appreciation is fairly simple: if I can appreciate that something took some skill to achieve, whether it be in writing, performing or even just coming up with a concept, then I can appreciate it even if I don't like it. If I think it took little or no skill, I'm fairly dismissive of it.

So a really well crafted Beatles song, a Mozart symphony, a Goya or Dali painting, a Rodin or a Michelangelo statue, all of these are things I enjoy as art. They all have an obvious element of skill involved at various levels.

Things I can appreciate but dislike include artists or composers like Frank Zappa, Harrison Birtwhistle, Matisse, Damien Hirst. I can tell that there may be skill involved, and appreciate that, but I don't like the results.

Things I can't appreciate, well, I may get strung up for this now... Autechre, Boards of Canada, in fact most glitchy stuff, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Pollock, Tracy Emin. Stuff where skill and random crap are hard to tell apart, and you only have someone's word that it's meant to be that way, or things that are only art because the person who made them has an art degree (and would be ignored if an identical thing was produced by someone else)

I know people will disagree with that, it's just how I consider things. It's not an absolute value judgement - I'm not saying Autechre or Piet Mondrian are rubbish. Just that I can't enjoy or appreciate their work.

I guess im among those who disagree

bringing art down to a mere technical stunt is taking artists for circus attractions...
to me, a children drawing can be more expressive, deep and beautiful than a renaissance painting...

[Sartori]

I guess im among those who disagree

bringing art down to a mere technical stunt is taking artists for circus attractions...
to me, a children drawing can be more expressive, deep and beautiful than a renaissance painting...

It's not solely technical, don't get me wrong. But I think there definitely has to be an aspect of skill about it. Otherwise you can get the same product by random chance, or by unskilled accidents. Take this article...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak ... 146&page=2

They get a bunch of 4-year-olds to do paintings, and artists can't tell that they've been done by kids. If those same four-year-olds could produce something indistinguishable from a given style of music just by hammering away randomly on a keyboard hooked up to your DAW of choice, I don't see how people can enjoy that.

Perhaps I've just not educated my ears enough...

[mercyplease]

yes the PRS in the UK are desperate to hadn over cash to electronic artists.

Why? Can you give us an example?

If you merely use electronic equipment and make appealing music you wont get a cent. If you make music that appeals to academia and incorporate video they will gladly hand over cash.

This translates to me as "if you just fuck about with beats & stuff on your computer, and make some dance tracks you should get money for it".

Why should you? And what do you mean by "appealing"?

And what makes you think that the PRS are in some sort of conspiracy with the world of academia?

I dont have a problem with supporting any music but I do have a problem with popular styles being disregarded.
So yes its academia over content

While it would seem that you're basically supporting my assertion that some of the best work in this field is possibly being done outside the institutions, I find myself disagreeing with your reasons for agreeing.

First go to the PRS site and you will see many examples.

Your second point is bullshit. You took the lowest denominantion and made that your point. No, the grants are for so called 'Art'. The examples on the site of people given grants all compose experimental electronica.
This is simply liberals disregarding the majority as usual.

[evernaut]

Your second point is bullshit. You took the lowest denominantion and made that your point. No, the grants are for so called 'Art'. The examples on the site of people given grants all compose experimental electronica.

My point is not bullshit.

My point is why should someone, in your words - who "merely uses electronic equipment and makes appealing music" - be deserving of a grant from the PRSF to do this?

Think about it - if you were in a position to offer money to someone, would you choose the artist who says "Well, I make dance music for the masses to enjoy using electronic equipment and..er...I'd like some money to do more of the same please" or the artist who says "Well, I want to dig a giant hole in the ground, fill it with bowls of different sizes and tunings that will resonate as water falls onto them, and amplify it all with a huge brass horn"?

Pretty sure I know who would fire my imagination. I would tell the first guy that it's all well & good that he's doing that, but so are a squillion other people. Why is he any different?

I would tell the second guy that his idea is fucking nuts. But it makes me wonder if it could be done. And what it would sound like. And how crazy it would look. And a whole host of things...so I'd be more interested in helping him do it.
Thankfully, we don't live in a society where all art has to be functional...or for the enjoyment of everybody, regardless of taste or age. It's very important that some art runs contrary to these concerns.



Also - the PRSF also clearly state that they do not fund individuals or recordings, just live events that present the music in new, innovative ways. Which means you have to get your shit together and put a bit of thought into what you're trying to achieve.

And I did visit their site to find they cover a wide range of music : "...unsigned band showcases to composer residencies, from commissions for new music to experimental live electronica".

So, not just EAM.

This is simply liberals disregarding the majority as usual.

No, this is simply you not understanding their criteria for submissions.

[evernaut]

http://www.scoreforaholeintheground.org/

[mikemc]

PS: the electroacoustic term for "pressing play" is called "diffusion". although not much is happening, typically the person manning the board is diffusing the sound through an array of speakers...

Ah yes. That's l33t sp43k for "djing", innit?

typically 8.1...although it can get MUCH MORE ELABORATE.
such as the Birmingham Electro Acoustic Sound Theatre...or BEAST.

http://www.ea-studios.bham.ac.uk/

mmmmmm. Beast. God I love grant-money![/quote]

"Well, yes I was DJ DawgPhatBeetz. But now I got the grant, I am, Diffuser DawgPhatBeetz, thank you very much."

[Michael-SW]

"Well, yes I was DJ DawgPhatBeetz. But now I got the grant, I am, Diffuser DawgPhatBeetz, thank you very much."

"Diffusing" is actually the art (?) of controlling a multi channel speaker system on the fly, creating a spatial experience from (typically) stereo material. You route, fade, pan etc the material as you go.

Personally, I think it was invented so EAM composers could at least pretend they are performing in some way after they press play on that CD player.

Seriously, a well done diffusion can add a lot to the listening experience.

[dj superflat]

this reminds me of the original eno place your speakers this way to really experience the music. didn't do much for me then, doesn't do much for me know (music for etc. are great, though). (even better: the lips' buy multiple records and play at same time -- who can bother to do that? (love the lips, though).)

[mikemc]

"Well, yes I was DJ DawgPhatBeetz. But now I got the grant, I am, Diffuser DawgPhatBeetz, thank you very much."

"Diffusing" is actually the art (?) of controlling a multi channel speaker system on the fly, creating a spatial experience from (typically) stereo material. You route, fade, pan etc the material as you go.

Personally, I think it was invented so EAM composers could at least pretend they are performing in some way after they press play on that CD player.

Seriously, a well done diffusion can add a lot to the listening experience.

despite the bad joke, I really think that EAM is a very interesting thing, that the 'sound immersion' thing can be really cool, and that it does move music technology towards a better place. I think that saying it's more concept than content isn't bad, just as the 'concept car' is the thing that never ships in production for the masses, and I think that saying it's "not a performance" is not an indictment, because it's more of an installation.

[dj superflat]

i'm with mike -- i've liked this stuff alot more when it's an adjunct to an art installation at a gallery or a museum. that is, it doesn't really purport to be a performance (which doesn't it any way render it less legit or worth).