is EAI noise?

[rlrds]

I don't think either of these artists are/were concerned with "target audiences"....honestly that's just Hollywood talk...
but, curiously...name one visual artist and one musician that elicit...uh...emotion from you
edit: yeah...I really need to start quoting...that bit about tasting fruit cracked me up

[Noj]

I guess I have to share your tastes to have taste at all. Exclusive club.

That which I enjoy about art in general is not an emotional reaction at all. I enjoy traditional techniques. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate those which seek an emotive response or that I don't comprehend their proper place in art history, it just isn't what I dig. Dig?

[jon abbey]

I guess I have to share your tastes to have taste at all. Exclusive club.

That which I enjoy about art in general is not an emotional reaction at all. I enjoy traditional techniques. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate those which seek an emotive response or that I don't comprehend their proper place in art history, it just isn't what I dig. Dig?

no, not really. have you been to the Rothko Chapel (a room that was too powerful for me to sit in for more than 20 minutes or so)? have you ever seen Keith live? have you heard the Rowe/Beins live record (as a prime example of his more visceral work)? if not, you might want to temper your overarching statements as to what specifically you're talking about.

[Noj]

I've heard the Rowe/Beins disc, from a mutual friend. Everything I've heard from your label is beautiful in its own way, Jon. It just isn't the sort of thing I listen to all the time, and what I listen to all the time is what I like. I think the music on Jon's label is powerful, gripping, creepy, disturbing...gutwrenching; a unique audio experience.

I don't mean to knock what others like in any way, I'm only speaking for me. I haven't been to the Rothko chapel. I'd love to go. But it wouldn't be the pinnacle of what I would enjoy in art. I'd get more of a kick out of seeing some Robert Williams paintings in person. Is that overarching?

[jon abbey]

no, that's a more nuanced post, thanks for clarifying.

[kp*]

I guess I have to share your tastes to have taste at all. Exclusive club.

No. That is too reductive. The problem was that i read your whole post too carefully.

You started off by stating:

Maybe I'm over-saturated from studying art and listening to music, but I do not have an emotional reaction to Rothko or Rowe. My immediate reaction is all practical, not gut.

Which is partways what i was getting at... I was decidedly not responding only to your response to Rowe and Rothko, but that you put that in the context of someone who was perhaps (interpreting) weary, numb, and jaded.

[kp*]

well... it's quite a bit clearer now.... thx

[faster]

I think the music on Jon's label is powerful, gripping, creepy, disturbing...gutwrenching...

Wait, how's that all intellectual, "no gut"? Those are emotional, visceral adjectives, Noj!

[Cornelis]

There's nothing universally Elecric or Acoustic or Improvised to EAI. It's a terrible name.

On the contrary IMO. A lot of elements of EAI existst because of the specific new relationship between electronics and acoustics in an improvised setting.
When MIMEO played in Nickelsdorf for the first time (1997) it was a revelation (for me anyway) that there where merely electronics, and it totaly made musical sense. Finaly computers where fast enough and people had developed a relationship with electronics in various more mature ways. Instead of electronic instruments imitating acoustic instruments, now it also could be reversed. New and specificly electronic sounds added a new vocabulary to acoustic instruments. Also the rather slow speed of the computers and their difficulty to interact fast, added some kind of rest to the music. There was a lot of time to focus on a certain sound/texture. And the contactmike added a new microscopic world to the acoustic instruments and is used a lot in EAI.
So, yeah, the E and the A in EAI makes total sense to me.

2 cents
Cor

[Stephen]

people had developed a relationship with electronics in various more mature ways. Instead of electronic instruments imitating acoustic instruments, now it also could be reversed. New and specificly electronic sounds added a new vocabulary to acoustic instruments.

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

[jon abbey]

are you kidding?

[Cornelis]

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

Well, IMO,there had been great achievments off course with electronics and interactivity (concept pieces coming from one brain).. But not in a setting with a group improvising and making quick decisions on the spot, which I think leads (generaly speaking) to more interesting/layered/juxtaposed music.
But I'm not sure really......

Cor

[sonoris]

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

I do agree with you. A look at the Alga Marghen catalogue shows it clearly (without speaking of other pionners such as David Tudor, Alvin Lucier and other american 'avant garde' artists).
Nothing new under the sun ....

[Stephen]

are you kidding?

No.

I take Cor's point about group interactivity but dont think there's anything being done now that constitutes a more developed or mature approach to the interaction of acoustic instrument and electronics than that of Tudor, Mumma, Behrman, Austin, Cage, Driscoll etc. much of which although yes, came from "one brain" did necessitate "making quick decisions on the spot" due to the unpredictability of the electronics.

[Joda]

Maybe of noises?

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

I do agree with you. A look at the Alga Marghen catalogue shows it clearly (without speaking of other pionners such as David Tudor, Alvin Lucier and other american 'avant garde' artists).
Nothing new under the sun ....

Hmm, I think there's a bit more depth of history and development than one could extract from a single label's catalogue. I've found that the library is a good place to start, if one wishes to educate themselves about these 'avant-garde' artists. Also, seeing this pioneering 'avant-garde' art performed live is also useful, as many of these pioneers weren't conducting these experiments with CDs in mind.

New music is also very encouraging, to see in live performance.

[sonoris]

Hmm, I think there's a bit more depth of history and development than one could extract from a single label's catalogue. I've found that the library is a good place to start, if one wishes to educate themselves about these 'avant-garde' artists. Also, seeing this pioneering 'avant-garde' art performed live is also useful, as many of these pioneers weren't conducting these experiments with CDs in mind.

New music is also very encouraging, to see in live performance.

I talked about Alga Marghen as example (since they are specialized in archive recordings) but, i agree, they are many other artists/records that demonstrate that the work on acoustic/electronic/improvisation started in the 60's (and not in the late 90's ...)

[jcg]

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

I do agree with you. A look at the Alga Marghen catalogue shows it clearly (without speaking of other pionners such as David Tudor, Alvin Lucier and other american 'avant garde' artists).
Nothing new under the sun ....

This is a quite provocative opinion that is, I believe, too exaggerated to be taken seriously...

While this is undeniable that groundbreaking work in the field of electroacoustic music has been done back in the 50s (hello Karlheinz!) and onward (Cage, Tudor, Mumma, Lucier and I’m surprised nobody mentioned the whole INA GRM crew), those works were mostly composed with, I assume, a lot of thoughts, rewriting, editing, etc. So we’re pretty far from real time improvisation here.

Still these early efforts left an impression on many, showed than electronics could be a valuable medium to produce sounds and showed that some limitation of acoustic instruments (associated with limited frequencies, volume, duration, delay, etc) could be circumvented by using this type of approach. And this was probably amazingly cool back in 1956!

A few decades later (early 90s?), all these great discoveries are totally integrated by the music industry and the use of electronics is certainly not the privilege of an avant-garde elite anymore. The NEW THING is that laptops, dedicated software, mixing boards, etc. are all over the place, better and better, more and more user-friendly and cheaper. And awareness of previous musical experiments is growing as well.

Result 1: if I were a 12 year old kid eager to fuck around with some music equipment in the basement, I’d rather pick a computer or do some circuit bending on my own than hanging with my buddies in search of a bass player for our rock band (but that just me).

Result 2: as I’m pretty sure lots of people actually did that, what we have now is at least one generation (or two) that has grown up and is comfortable with home equipment that could only be the property of music research departments back then!

Result 3: experimental music and improvised music fields, just like every other, are now overwhelmed by musicians/artists that have developed their own language, sometimes techniques with primarily electronic devices, which doesn’t prevent them from playing acoustic instruments as well (Toshimaru Nakamura may be a good example).

Result 4: this now leads to a variety of personalities, approaches, sound sources that may or may not be beneficial to improvised music. EAI is, I think, the result of that: the natural use of electronics in a live improv context because NOW a whole bunch of people know how to use it (much more control than yesterday) and they have very precise ideas on how they can/want to use it (increased consciousness and thinking about all that).

Punch line: I think everybody agree that a handful of early geniuses in Europe and the US kicked ass with their electroacoustic works around the middle of the 20th century. I’m also pretty sure we can agree that, in an improvisation context, most developments have been achieved in the past 15 years.

[Noj]

I think the music on Jon's label is powerful, gripping, creepy, disturbing...gutwrenching...

Wait, how's that all intellectual, "no gut"? Those are emotional, visceral adjectives, Noj!

I stand corrected. They just aren't the emotions I want to feel all the time.

[MRS]

experimental music and improvised music fields, just like every other, are now overwhelmed by musicians/artists that have developed their own language

Interesting post but with this I take great exception.

[p_ano]

people had developed a relationship with electronics in various more mature ways. Instead of electronic instruments imitating acoustic instruments, now it also could be reversed. New and specificly electronic sounds added a new vocabulary to acoustic instruments.

I take your point about the E and the A but all of the mature-approaches and interactions between acoustics and electronics had surely been achieved 20-30 years before 1997?

now i promised myself i wasn't going to pay any more attention to these threads, but i couldn't let this one slide. certainly the relationship between E and A is STILL maturing. a lot of early experimentation is interesting in its own right, but often just comes across as campy.