OT: electroacoustic composition: more concept than content?

sans soleil · Post by **sans soleil** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:52 pm

there's quite a bit of interesting stuff that bridges the divide between purely academic ('difficult') music, and music that's accessible to those outside the (admittedly very insular) electro-acoustic scene.

the touch label is a good place to start, mego is another one, staubgold...there are many more as well as quite a few netlabels with some very respectable stuff: stasisfield.com, vagueterrain.net are two among many (ok...a bit of self-promo here, but take a look and decide for yourself)...

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:18 pm

Silverfish wrote:
Context is perhaps the most important thing surrounding music. A dance track doesn't translate well in a recital hall, and a symphony doesn't work in a club (generally speaking, ofcourse).

If the recital hall was full of clubbers, or the club full of concert-goers would it work?

Just playing devil's advocate here, cos I know what you mean...but isn't it context as defined by the listener, rather than the actual physical space that's important? ( Aside from issues such as acoustics)

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:44 pm

good question-- '...more concept than content?'.

it's kind of like this:

where the 'idea of it being music' is the 'wrapping' and the more or less found content is the actual composition. Are either one 'art'?

It is the case that people create it and get grants, then people debate this stuff, and get grants.

I think that's just fine, though-- it does lead one towards a deeper understanding.

Also, have a listen here: http://myspace.com/valismusic

In places, this is at least as inaccessible as electroacoustic

but 5 of us using Live performed it in a club.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:05 pm

"interesting", "ground-breaking", "entertaining", "exotic", "moving", "inspiring" - some of the qualities I appreciate in a piece of music.

A piece of music can be any and sometimes all of these things.

You can't often get it all, but i tend to choose music that ticks the boxes towards the end of the list. for me that is the goal of truly great art.

some "serious" music comes accross as a sterile, intellectual exercise. I'm mot saying this has no value - like pure mathematics - it's a valid intellectual pursuit. I appreciate it and find it "interesting", but I probably won't be listening to it in ten year's time.

I think that some music has a its greatest value in terms of the influence it has on other musicians. Many mainstream artists get thier inspiration from more obscure/inaccessible forms of music.

But when I sit down to listen to music I usually want to be inspired - or at least entertained.

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:10 pm

Well, to continue the discussion from the above poster: Live performances (in EAM or other electronic genres) are they really valid today? Two points against:

- It will probably sound much worse than it would if you had actually produced the piece in a studio.

- The audience has no way of knowing if you are actually playing. You might as well just press play on your IPod and then go though the motions.

To play live is of course fun for the performers, but the audience probably wouldn't care less if you just put on a CD and then put Milli Vanilli on the stage.

Purist EAM performances are always from "tape" (most likely a CD/DVD/DAT today), just for the above reasons.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:29 pm

music (more so than most art?) seems tied to what humans like, respond to, etc. so leaving aside whether conceptual visual art makes much sense, conceptual music seems almost a contradiction in terms. reading the thread, it seems some of us want a little more art in our music, but not too much (so that it becomes abstracted from all the things we value in, respond viscerally too, in music). lots of academic electroacoustic is somewhat off the deep end. it's like matthew barney -- i suppose it's neat, but not really what i want in a movie. other issue: sometimes the statement being made by avant garde work is really just -- can you believe this counts as art/music? (i put a urinal against a wall, call it art, etc.) such statement art generally doesn't resonate well outside academia for obvious reasons. that's why i like the musicians who seem to be able to have their art music and eat it too (to mix metaphors).

the_viirus · Post by **the_viirus** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:22 am

i am fortunate to have somewhere to listen to electroacoustic music on a monthly basis...and local too.

http://emu.music.ufl.edu/

now in the past, i have not really been to thrilled about much fo the music, but i will appreciate it for what i see it as...a chance to be subjected to unusual stuff in surround sound. there have been very few "playback" pieces which i can say i enjoyed. i typically have liked more of the pieces which involved a performance of "something."

my biggest gripe...i cannot really take anything with me. i wont find myself humming anything catchy later. i dont expect to, but it would be nice to remember some things.

some notable pieces which i have enjoyed thoroughly.

Pat Pagano
"iCage"
a piece for ipods, handheld radios, and audience participation.

Joo Won Park
"descrescendo"
a lush piece constructed from only sine waves in different frequencies.

"music for the biceps"
a piece performed on a laptop, melodica, and bicycle pump,

"to here knows when"
a muddier interpretation of a my bloody valentine song.

(PS: joo won park is one of the many peolpe who has done a fuckload of work for csound and an all around nice guy.)

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:11 am

I like a lot of the electroacoustic music. http://otherminds.org is an interesting site for this. I think George Antheil's compositions are really astounding and timeless. It's hard to say where to draw the line: Frank Zappa absolutely had some pieces that could be called electroacoustic. Luc Ferrari had some tapes of random ambient conversation, and so does Richie Hawtin.

People can get really stuffy about some of this stuff, though, which drains it of a lot of vitality.

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:17 am

OK. Here's a little test...for fun

There are 2 mp3 files below.

One is the work of a highly regarded, ground-breaking EAM composer and is taken from a cd that a famous avant garde rock musician/producer called "The best record of 1996!"..
and the other is not composed music at all.

1 : http://www.filecoast.com/?pg=file&c1=23 ... 2=ALPmdLB9

2 : http://www.filecoast.com/?pg=file&c1=23 ... 2=WL2wRtcm

Can you tell which is which?

Don't worry, they're only a coupla megs each.

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:21 am

mikemc wrote:good question-- '...more concept than content?'.

it's kind of like this:

where the 'idea of it being music' is the 'wrapping' and the more or less found content is the actual composition. Are either one 'art'?

That's amazing. I would love to see that for real.

The sheer scale of it would be breath-taking. Definitely great art for me.

And a very insightful visual analogy for what we're discussing too I reckon.

I think sometimes that "because no-one else has done it / done it like this" and "because I can/Because I thought it could be done" are enough of an answer to the questions of Why is it art? and Why did you do it?

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:42 am

Michael-SW wrote:.. Live performances (in EAM or other electronic genres) are they really valid today? Two points against:

- It will probably sound much worse than it would if you had actually produced the piece in a studio.

Or it may sound better than you could have ever expected... given the spontaneous nature of live performance.

If you were both well-prepared & adrenalized during the piece, it could go places you'd never get to just working at home or in the studio.

Coupled with the visceral thrill of it usually being significantly louder ...and, just as important, a shared experience.

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:59 am

Hey, I like live performance as much as the next person. Both doing them and listening to/seeing them.

But I've heard the arguments above from various people. The best defence I could come up with was that a live performance offers the possibility of interaction between the audience and the performers, the performance can evolve in response to the audience's reactions.

Except for that, most arguments come down to the "theatre of performance" argument, ie. Milli Vanilli and a CD player would probably do a better job.

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:04 am

here
is something I did last week.

It's an exploration of NZ birdsong...the Tui specifically. Made using md field recordings in Wellington & the Marlborough Sounds, edited in Live 5.2 Lite, using freeware synth Automat and some free vsts like Blockfish.

Mastered in Peak 5 LE.

I'm quite pleased with this recording. It's basically a demo of various different approaches I've been toying with in an electroacoustic frame of mind.... and, although I feel now that each definite segment could take longer to evolve, overall I'm quite happy with the result. I'd explain it further ...but...

Here's an idea ..... since I made it, and know what I intended it to be about.. maybe as an experiment you could tell me what you think it means. And we'll see how similar...or not...our responses are?

Or we could still talk about girls

Or girls on drugs

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:35 am

Michael-SW wrote:Hey, I like live performance as much as the next person. Both doing them and listening to/seeing them.

But I've heard the arguments above from various people. The best defence I could come up with was that a live performance offers the possibility of interaction between the audience and the performers, the performance can evolve in response to the audience's reactions.

Except for that, most arguments come down to the "theatre of performance" argument, ie. Milli Vanilli and a CD player would probably do a better job.

I'm confused.

Do you think EAM can be performed effectively in a live situation or not?

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:49 am

I'm divided. But the arguments in my previous post was just me playing the devils advocate, repeating arguments against live performances i've heard from other people.

Personally, I do like to perform live. And I like to see some live performances too. But is that just because it is fun to see something moving on the stage, a puppet show? Is it an excuse for doing worse music?

I don't have the answers, but I've been thinking about it a bit.