OT: electroacoustic composition: more concept than content?

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:29 am

Been pondering this one for a few weeks and am keen to canvas thoughtful opinion on the matter.

For those unfamiliar with the genre, electroacoustic music is the broad heading given to modern abstract, electronic music composition. It is now largely the province of academia, and generally refers to sound "art" made using software such as Max/Msp & PD mixed with field recordings or other found sources.

The tradition grew out of the work of avant-garde artists like Pierre Schaeffer who created musique concrete (recorded sounds from the environment & the studio used to create new music), and Edgard Varese, John Cage, Karlheinz Stockhausen ,Pierre Boulez, etc. etc.

But where are we at now with it all? And why does so much of it sound like random clicks and beeps with uneasy silences thrown in? And why, for an "avant-garde" form, does much of it still sound like the stuff the aforementioned guys were doing 60 years ago?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm fascinated by it..I think it's a brave and exciting plunge into unexpected musical worlds, and can make you rethink & re-examine your old reference points.

When it works.

But, just as often, it seems like the emperor's new clothes. And some of it, without the required accompanying "concept" or intellectual rationalisation, makes little impact or sense in and of itself. For a piece to really "work", to me, it must first stand up on it's own as an aural experience - i.e), apart from the creator's concept of what it is "about".

I find myself listening with amazement to Matmos, FourTet, Herbert etc. and wonder if they, and not the University crowd, are taking this music forward?
By still using similar techniques, but embracing rhythm and melody again instead of just worshipping tones, their work seems fresher and newer in many ways.

I know they probably would not see themselves as working in the same tradition, being commercial artists rather than research-funded phd students, but I think they're being just as cutting edge and adventurous.

So - what do you reckon?

Is it all bollocks that no-one really listens to ( and the few that do can only appreciate it when they've been told why it's good) - or is it the Final Frontier?

We can always talk about girls if you want, though.

Or drugs.

Silverfish · Post by **Silverfish** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:19 am

Funny you should mention this...

I had a weekend full of discussions surrounding electroacoustic music, and whether or not some of it even constitutes music.

I'm a vocal music student at Iowa State University (the last place you'd expect to hear this stuff, I know), and our small, albeit talented, department recently renovated the building. In honor of this occassion, we hosted a concert for our benefactors and featured a number of varied ensembles and styles of music.

One of the improvements to our recital hall was the addition of a rear center speaker, giving us full 8.1 surround sound capabilities. Overkill? Maybe, but as a tech guy, I'm stoked. A piece was played during the concert to showcase this new technology, a piece by Scott Wyatt called "On a Roll". The idea behind the piece is to simulate the sounds of rolling objects in space. It does this very effectively. For 9+ minutes.

After the concert I was with some friends and they asked, "What exactly was involved with that performance?" I promptly told them that all my professor had done was hit "play". They couldn't understand how that was a performance. Having met the composer, I explained how the piece was done as a tech demo for Sony or some other movie studio to create new algorithms for movie sound effects.

After this conversation, I thought a little bit about music and electronic performance. People don't get it. The same people that fully understand the works of Beethoven or Mozart, or even Schonberg, don't get electroacoustic music.

Why?

Perhaps it has to do with comprehension. I certainly don't mean to perpetuate Ivory Tower philosophy, but knowledge about certain types of music seems to enhance people's perception. I love classical music. Franz Schubert is my hero. I also love techno and (for no apparent reason) worship Daft Punk. The difference is, Schubert makes me think about what I'm listening to. I can tune Daft Punk out.

The process is important. So is melody, and all things found in "real music". There is a lot of Daft crap out there, whether it's pop music, instrumental, classical, but there are always shining examples of what music is really about- emotion and ideas.

I think it's our responsibility as musicians to accept the notion that all musical ideas are legitamate, be they big or small.

Girls are hot, too.

PS- This semester I'm composing an electroacoustic piece for voice. I'll be using Live, and perhaps I can get a recording in surround, too. I'll keep you all posted.

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:44 am

Silverfish wrote:
The process is important. So is melody, and all things found in "real music". There is a lot of Daft crap out there, whether it's pop music, instrumental, classical, but there are always shining examples of what music is really about- emotion and ideas.

I think it's our responsibility as musicians to accept the notion that all musical ideas are legitamate, be they big or small.

I agree, it is important.

In the same way that I couldn't really write a good song that was just a bunch of guitar chords & a few lyrical platitudes about nothing in particular, I couldn't compose an electroacoustic piece without some idea of what I was trying to say/provoke/suggest to the listener...and without some idea of the way I'd presented/played it informing that.

But, having done some pieces myself, I've decided I'm maybe more in love with raw sounds and the space they occupy in a recording or live work...and how they interact & move you on both a very primal & very spiritual way at the same time.

Sure, it's great if the composer ( or perceptive listener/critic) then further deepens your appreciation by giving you another frame of reference to think about...but it has to hit home in some way first.

Keen as fuck to hear your track when it's ready

rodcencko · Post by **rodcencko** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:21 am

very interesting thread
I think that's is in the human nature to continue evolving .
During the the 1800 century more or less all the melodic universe was explored so well all the acustic instruments were invented , so what was next: electronic instruments came in the 1900 century so well the music composition took others directions. Is inevitable we have to change our way to listen as well as we had change our way to see . In a matter of 100 years they will look back to this period as a changing point in music at the same time the electronic instrument will be obsolete and the genetic manipulated sound will take the scene . and our future discendant will listen the gurgling of a new born cell as the latest trend and someone will wonderering if was not better before when glitches and sinusoidal waves filled the music scene.

Benshik · Post by **Benshik** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:14 am

although some of it can be stunningly beautiful,
most of electroacoustic music is stagnating, boring, and incredibly overrated.

I find it sad that so many talented and intelligent people feel the pressure to lock theirselves up into that ivory tower, while the pop culture is left to a bunch of hip hop meatheads.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:21 am

I try to listen to as many different genres of music as possible (Pandora is fantastic!), and it's songwriting that does it for me. IMO, songwriting is what's lacking in many musical styles, particularly dance and pop music, which to me has turned into an A-B-C formulaic exercise and can (and probably is!) produced by unmanned programs. That's why those without songwriting talent can call themselves 'producers' nowadays. I feel that so much of today's music is produced by skill, not talent.

That can be a good thing, though. It makes production of music accessible to just about anyone with a computer, but at the same time swamps the world with useless, soundalike drivel. It makes it hard to find the good stuff, but that can be an educational journey in itself.

I wish I had songwriting talent. I'm glad there are still 'Becks' out there.

Robert Henke · Post by **Robert Henke** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:46 am

Benshik wrote:although some of it can be stunningly beautiful,
most of electroacoustic music is stagnating, boring, and incredibly overrated.

Hmm, the same thing could be said about any musical genre. Or art in general.

Robert

btw.: IMHO this is not at all [OT]

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:05 am

Robert Henke wrote:

btw.: IMHO this is not at all [OT]

I wasn't sure...it wasn't about Live as such.

Although Live is great for mixing ea stuff I've found. Helps to see your available options in Clips.

Damn..now it's totally On T.

evernaut · Post by **evernaut** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:08 am

hambone1 wrote:I try to listen to as many different genres of music as possible, and it's songwriting that does it for me.

Hear here !

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:14 am

I'm studying electroacoustic music right now and I'm struck by much of the same insights as evernaut is.

Much EAM is boring and indeed sounds like the ideals formed 50 years ago. But there certainly are exceptions, excellent pieces that really grips you.

But one also has to remember that EAM isn't easy listening. It usually lacks both tonality and rythm and instead rely on the sounds themselves and how they interact. You have to train your ears (or at least open your mind) to be able to appreciate it fully since we are so used to have either rythm or tonality to rely on.

BTW, much of the above problems is equally applicable to modern instrumental art music, ie. "modern classical" music. I usually rather listen to EAM..

Benshik · Post by **Benshik** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:17 am

Robert Henke wrote:
Benshik wrote:although some of it can be stunningly beautiful,
most of electroacoustic music is stagnating, boring, and incredibly overrated.

Hmm, the same thing could be said about any musical genre. Or art in general.

Robert

btw.: IMHO this is not at all [OT]

i agree with you, there is good and bad stuff in all genres...
but unlike electroacoustic, i dont think that pop music is incredibly overrated. it is rather mocked and dismissed, coz pop music doesnt have this "serious art" aura.

pop music has no back up, no smart theory to justifie itself. electroacoustic is harder to criticise.

i guess the most important is to remain open, whatever the genre...

YILA · Post by **YILA** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:32 am

fourtet isnt pushing any boundries in my opinion, he's just trendy.

how can electroacoustic be bollox any more than a picasso? I love the freedom, some people find it hard (including myself) to judge music or sound in terms of 'art' rather than say 'real music' with melody etc...we've been so used to judging music in terms of the classical legacy now lets be punks and go make some noise art!

Right back to making that house track...

fatrabbit · Post by **fatrabbit** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:32 am

I agree with the original poster on this one.

A lot of it is very similar in concept to that of 50 years or so ago.

People like FourTet (as mentioned) combine experimentation with good compositional awareness. At least a basic grasp of music theory is in my opinion critical.

What is music after all? In relative terms, I don't think there are many people asking this (ie. the wider population) - and frankly why should they? You have to accept the fact that people will always be assigned to Country-Pop music or Metal etc. They will enjoy music as a form of entertainment.

Sure, a lack of questioning is a bad thing, as is disregard for everything that has gone before - hence the need for balance.

I love my noise (as my circuit bending will attest to), but I want to combine this with at least some form of a compositional attitude.

Benshik · Post by **Benshik** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:58 am

YILA wrote:we've been so used to judging music in terms of the classical legacy now lets be punks and go make some noise art!

thats exactly why i think some electroacoustic music isnt good: because people do it not for the love of sound but for the hate of what they perceive as "classical" melodic music.

maybe it can be therapeutic and liberating in someones own personal path to musical enlightement, but in a 2006 context, it doesnt make any sense.

the fact that all universtity students are into that stuff demonstrates that electroacoustic has replaced classical as the new "Academic" music, the new norm.

Silverfish · Post by **Silverfish** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:17 pm

the fact that all universtity students are into that stuff demonstrates that electroacoustic has replaced classical as the new "Academic" music, the new norm.

Not true. Very few university students are involved with electroacoustic music.

maybe it can be therapeutic and liberating in someones own personal path to musical enlightement, but in a 2006 context, it doesnt make any sense.

Isn't that what a 2006 context is all about: The ability to customize your own unique experience?

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). But without context, so much music loses the majority of its meaning and value. The 1812 overture springs to mind. If I were to compose that piece today, nobody would care because A) It sounds just like music being written 200 years ago, and B) I may have randomly given it a title that has nothing to do with the programmatic content.

I'm really enjoying this topic, btw, and I think the ideas behind the discussion carry over into a lot of other disciplines.