Empreintes DIGITALes & modern electroacoustics

[some guy]

http://asymmetrymusicmagazine.com/?s=clozier

[Adam Asnan]

Dufour is a leading example of one who has been taught the classics aesthetics and transcribed this to latter day techniques, plus his (fidelity) mixing is outstanding, not too bright and shiny, but clear and realistic.

Im not really sure whether more pieces of acousmatic art have been produced between 1985 and today, then that of say between 1950-1984, but I feel that If I were to make a top 20 list, how many of the latter day works would make it?

Adam Asnan wrote:
in my opinion, the latter day stylisation as outlined above has come about due to a demand for maximum clarity in diffusion (performance) and effectivity across a wide range of acoustic halls etc.


Hmmm.. I heard Jonty Harrison and a bunch of other BEAST affiliated composers 'diffuse' on the BEAST system in Plymouth, and it left me utterly limp (with the exception of Harrison's Undertow. Sterile it certainly was. What do you mean by 'maximum clarity'? That we hear can hear all the sounds and their spatialisation at all times? I just don't buy it. They were all using material recorded on location and much was made of evoking 'place' in the programme notes, but to me it all sounded like it was recorded in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. I live in Devon, it rains a lot down here, and I've never heard rain *glisten*, why the need to make it so? If you ask me there is just too much sugar-coating going on (admittedly these were less experienced or respected composers than Dhomont or Smalley) which serves no purpose in my eyes.

..In theory at least, but I really do feel that the performance/diffusion of acousmatic art influences the choice of sounds used by some composers, I agree whole-heartedly about the 'sugar-coating' - why transform a perfectly interesting sound as recorded unless it is an integral part of the composition? - demonstration. (and not particularly interesting at that..) It makes no sense to me sometimes, and thus I try to stay away from explicit transformation as much as possible.

But saying that, upon what criteria do we deem the explicit transformations used by composers such as Chion, Dhomont or Bayle (each their own style of course) perfectly acceptable ?

[(<oo>)]

a great recentish crossover between electroacoustic and "popular" music: leafcutter john - the housebound spirit

http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/reviews ... spirit.htm

[Zeno Marx]

Bernard Donzel-Gargand - Toile de sons CD
Though it has a low rating on Discogs, I thought this had some really nice moments.
http://www.discogs.com/Bernard-Donzel-G ... ase/198260

The GMVL label had some fine work on it; Bernard Fort and Marc Favre in particular.
http://www.discogs.com/label/GMVL

It's unfortunate that Empreintes DIGITALes packaged their discs like they did. Finding discs in good condition is difficult.

[Stephen]

I really do feel that the performance/diffusion of acousmatic art influences the choice of sounds used by some composers

Maybe so, but in my experience of diffused performances, they have worked considerably better with a wider and less exclusive timbral palette. Chion's Requiem and Bayle's Experience Acoustique both deploy 'raw' sounds amongst a dominance of processed material, Is anyone doing this on diffusion systems these days? Of what I have heard everything was treated with a similar brush, so yes it all 'hangs together' as a work, but the joy was in the jarring...

upon what criteria do we deem the explicit transformations used by composers such as Chion, Dhomont or Bayle (each their own style of course) perfectly acceptable ?

A lot of this can be sorted out in the titling/text. If you are trying to evoke Espaces Inhabitables or a Spinning Top in the sky (Toupie dans le ciel) then transformations of acoustic stuffs seem totally appropriate, otherwordly for the sake of otherworldliness is fine I guess, but if you are trying to evoke the coastline of Wales then similar transformations suddenly read as emotional content, and just a bit sentimental and cheesy.

I also wonder if some of this is down to the tools, whether digital processing is just a bit too clinical and inhuman in the hands of an academic composer, where analogue techniques were a little more hit and miss.

[Adam Asnan]

Maybe so, but in my experience of diffused performances, they have worked considerably better with a wider and less exclusive timbral palette. Chion's Requiem and Bayle's Experience Acoustique both deploy 'raw' sounds amongst a dominance of processed material, Is anyone doing this on diffusion systems these days?

Unfortunately not enough, I am in agreement. But John Young is one such composer that bases his work on recognisable, and transparent source material that then undertakes a flux of computer aided abstractions, he does this with much considerence and balance.

As metioned before, Jonty Harrison's compositions are also of this nature, his transformations are always very well controlled and never really push the tools too far, there is always a tangibility.

A lot of this can be sorted out in the titling/text. If you are trying to evoke Espaces Inhabitables or a Spinning Top in the sky (Toupie dans le ciel)

Yes, but I believe the titling is probably the least important part of a composition, and assuming that the composers have titled these pieces after completion, why should we not imagine or conceptualise a narritave setting as WE see most appropriate?
We should be wary of titles, if one listens for the musical characteristics of a title (that is to say, one that may evoke a pre-conceived 'imagined' theme) then the true definition of reduced/acousmatic listening can be under threat. There is a chance that we are no longer listening for the relationships in spectra but instead trying to make sense of it in terms of real or other-worldly symbols. Therefore a slightly differing listening attitude.. and one that mr Schaeffer wasnt particularly concerned with.

Although, there are works that appear to be so much more because they are of a narrative setting (for example, Chion's 'La Tentation de Saint Antoine') but working wonders because its title is without the details of the phenomenon directly illustrated in the text.

I also wonder if some of this is down to the tools, whether digital processing is just a bit too clinical and inhuman in the hands of an academic composer, where analogue techniques were a little more hit and miss.

True, all tools require a great understanding if they are to be used well, and interestingly. I fear that the contemporary state of academic acousmatic art is perhaps too relient on digital technology (save for Marchetti, Noetingerand the like..) I find it quite amazing that some composers are completely happy to contain all of their work inside the computer, rarely taking the signal for an 'outboard excersion' as it were.. The digital tools are hit and miss as much as the analogue, they should be taught equally.

But then again, academic institutions of this type probably get their funding based on forward thinking in terms of new tools, and new approaches to the uses of technology in art.. so it makes sense.. if we are to study electronic musics, then we'd better do so now, because the old practioners will slow die off, and we will be without the direct correspondence of those who have bridged the analogue to digital domains.

I hope ive made sense here..

side note, I read this:

analogue techniques were a little more 'hit and miss.'

as 'hiss' which made me chuckle a bit.

[Adam Asnan]

Also, let us not forget that Dufour's label MOTUS is also a leading publisher of new acousmatic work

[visa tapani]

I'm aware that this stuff is considered to be kind of lame around here, for many of the reasons already mentioned. [...] the general line one might expect from IHM [is] that much of the music is clueless and dated.

Yeah, I've noticed this too, but reasons given are always very vague. This thread sheds a bit of light on this but not much.. On one hand people criticize the music as doing "excessive aestheticisation" and sugar-coating or being too sterile. Yet everyone seems to like Dhomont for example, who does that too. Parmegiani's De Natura Sonorum seems to be a particular IHM favorite, but I don't quite see how its aestheticisation of sound is that different? It seems a little bit that the sounds of contemporary EA are just less hip than the rougher ones favored by the EAi crowd for instance.

But if we don't limit ourselves to the Francophone acousmatic works, there's a lot of different kind of EA produced at the moment, for example mixed works for instruments and live electronics. Or as I mentioned earlier, I don't see any major reason why, say, Breadwinner or Jean-Francois Laportes Soundmatters wouldn't been categorized as EA - both liked around here. If we don't limit ourselves to a rigorously limited definiton of EA, there's a lot of good music done in this field today.

I know the Lieux Inouïs CD and had a bit of a hard time with most of it. "Jeux" (1988-99) starts off with a channel-flicking sample of medieval music and never really seems to get going, but there's a nice enough segue to a childrens' playground at one point. The piece I liked most there, "Rumeurs (Place De Ransbeck)." seemed to be closer to early musique concrète than the others; lots of splashing water and other only slightly transformed household sounds. The closing pieces especially seemed a bit like space-synth noodling, but maybe that's just a prejudice of mine.

I agree that Normandeau is threading a line there. On his earlier discs I can still take it but the new ones sound too much like new-age music to me. But I'd agree that Rumeurs is the highlight on that one...

[faster]

everyone seems to like Dhomont for example

I don't know, it seems like most of the people commenting in this thread do, yeah, but that's a small minority of posters.

I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff, so a thread like this is helpful for me. I'll probably try to track down some of the recs here, in fact. Keep it coming!

[visa tapani]

John Young is one such composer that bases his work on recognisable, and transparent source material that then undertakes a flux of computer aided abstractions, he does this with much considerence and balance.

Funny, I've always found John Young to be slightly dry. Like he has a very clear point he wants to make and makes it carefully, but never really moves beyond that to thrill or excite. Considerate is a good word for his music but IMO also slightly negatively.

There is a chance that we are no longer listening for the relationships in spectra but instead trying to make sense of it in terms of real or other-worldly symbols. Therefore a slightly differing listening attitude.. and one that mr Schaeffer wasnt particularly concerned with.

Well yeah, but there are good reasons to expand on Schaeffers ideas about listening and how acousmatic music should be made. In some issues Schaeffer was even fairly conservative.

I find it quite amazing that some composers are completely happy to contain all of their work inside the computer, rarely taking the signal for an 'outboard excersion' as it were..

What's so amazing about it?

[cdeupree]

I agree with several other posters that excellent musique concrete isn't limited to the Francophones, and I also believe that musique concrete is alive and well as a musical genre. Schaeffer's original definition was based on using recognizable material as sound objects, which seems to me to emcompass the many varieties of composers who work field recordings of all stripes into their music. Francisco Lopez is very aware of Schaeffer's theories, but seems to fall outside of many discussions of this type, but I would also include artists typically classified with drone art, including Jonathan Coleclough, Darren Tate, Jean-Francois Laporte (already mentioned) and Michael Northam.

Anyway, sticking closer to a traditional musique concrete approach rather than drones, recent work that I've liked and occasionally reviewed includes:

• Angelo Petronella's Sintesi da un Diario on Die Schachtel (review here)
  Stefano Pilia's The Suncrows Fall and Tree on Sedimental (review here)
  Francisco Lopez' Wind [Patagonia] on and/OAR (review here)
  Frances White's Centre Bridge, pieces for instruments and electronics on Mode (review here)
  Henri Pousseur's last big musique concrete opus, Paysages Planetaires -- OK, so he's slightly francophone

I haven't kept up with really recent ED output, but my favorite Normandeau album is Tangram. Michele Bokanowski's Cirque and Christian Calon's Les Corps Eblouis are outstanding as well.

[(<oo>)]

i think the term acousmatic is to be avoided. there's something sectarian about it: we're the true schaeffer heirs.

for me bhob rainey's "two sides of a bitter suite" is electroacoustic too.
and isn't rlw as well? and most things on tulpas?

has daoust been mentioned yet? his "musiques naives" is quite nice.
and ferrari managed to be engaging till he stopped breathing.

[Zeno Marx]

i think the term acousmatic is to be avoided.

I've always understood acousmatique to be more akin to pure, unadulterated (or very slightly manipulated) field recordings and such, i.e. Bernard Fort - Compositions Ornithologiques CD or something like what Chris Watson does. Where much of the manipulation is in the recording techniques, rather than post-recording.

[kp*]

As an EAM/Computer music survivor (my first pieces were done in music11 on a mainframe), you might imagine that i would have a lot to say on this topic, but i am kinda overwhelmed at work, and pretty darn late to this party anyway, with some of what i would add, already touched upon by other posters. For computer music/Electro-Acoustic/Acousmatic music that might be worth a listen, I would (quickly) throw out these names:

Paul Koonce
Francis White
Charles Dodge
Trevor Wishart (at times seems to foreshadow some EAI aesthetic concerns/language as did some of the rougher Midwest disciples of Herbert Brun)
Horacio Vaggione (wildly underrated composer)
Judy Klein
Beatriz Ferreyra

Interestingly, i (every so often) locate a some of the qualities of this world in the music of some eai/taomud folks like fennez, whose music occasionally has a Paul Lansky-esque sheen too it. And Marcus Schmickler's music as well, at times sometimes has a bit of an EAM vibe to it.

[Adam Asnan]

Funny, I've always found John Young to be slightly dry. Like he has a very clear point he wants to make and makes it carefully, but never really moves beyond that to thrill or excite. Considerate is a good word for his music but IMO also slightly negatively.

I know what you mean, however I think his loyalty to the source material, and amount of space he allows for this in his work, is a fine example the very basics of what acousmatic art stands for (that is to say, recorded aural images displaced from their incidence, and projected anew) in a time when 'laser beams' are flying around shimmering all over the place, this promotes an appreciation for source material left intact (relatively speaking..), as opposed to the qualities of transformation that can be acheived with them. (again, that is to say, electrified beyond recognition)

Well yeah, but there are good reasons to expand on Schaeffers ideas about listening and how acousmatic music should be made. In some issues Schaeffer was even fairly conservative.

Is there? I mean, can we consider them as real expansion? or deviation? I guess it depends on your outlook, it is undeniable that since the dawn of recorded sound, our listening habits are steadfast in that we try to seek out the meaning of each sound, and its origin.. there is a definate duality being explored in subsequent output, and each piece is different in it's portrayal, and more importantly, it's purposeful inference of recognisablity, and those to be received for it's spectromorphology alone without reference. But how do we differentiate? IMO, I persevere to listen to both, with perhaps a little more focus on the latter.

I find it quite amazing that some composers are completely happy to contain all of their work inside the computer, rarely taking the signal for an 'outboard excersion' as it were..


What's so amazing about it?

Perhaps not amazing, but I find it fascinating that acousmatic composers are not taking more advantage of techniques that lie outside of the computer's capabilities.. But I accept it, actually for very sam reasons as why it is fascinating to me, acousmatic art has many guises, styles and tools now, both modern and dated.. it upsets me that, in the academic environment, exploration of these is limited.

[Adam Asnan]

On one hand people criticize the music as doing "excessive aestheticisation" and sugar-coating or being too sterile. Yet everyone seems to like Dhomont for example, who does that too. Parmegiani's De Natura Sonorum seems to be a particular IHM favorite, but I don't quite see how its aestheticisation of sound is that different? It seems a little bit that the sounds of contemporary EA are just less hip than the rougher ones favored by the EAi crowd for instance.

Dhomont has made some good work (and some bad work), as have many many composers that choose to really 'excite' their material, but my main problem, is that as the digital tools being used are becoming more and more sophiticated and accurate, so is the lack of attention to interesting source material (there are many obvious exceptions..) My point is that, the sanctity of objet sonore is fading.

personally, it's the obvious spectral modifications that I find ugly in current acousmatics; to be able to remove or enhance individual frequency bands for any reason other than correction, I find difficult to digest. But I understand their uses, and can appreciate their merits in diffusion settings.

Also, I am a great fan of 'non academic' artists (lets say, 'pertaining to acousmatic' if the term is seen to be too elitist) The Animist Orchestra is an outstanding concept, mixing the sonification of an environment, improvisation and the acousmatic allure all in one. ('Wuwei' makes my top 10 best EA pieces/releases ever)

top 10 anyone?

[visa tapani]

i think the term acousmatic is to be avoided.

I've always understood acousmatique to be more akin to pure, unadulterated (or very slightly manipulated) field recordings and such, i.e. Bernard Fort - Compositions Ornithologiques CD or something like what Chris Watson does. Where much of the manipulation is in the recording techniques, rather than post-recording.

I think the common term for that is soundscape composition. Acousmatic is generally used simply to mean "tape music", ie. EA music that is not for instruments and tape or otherwise live. Chion speaks a little bit about this in his Paris Transatlantic interview:

Well, as you know, the terminology has changed. At the beginning of the 70s "electroacoustic" meant something on magnetic tape. But live electronic music already existed, and more and more composers started adding live instruments. Then you had people like Jean-Michel Jarre saying he was making electroacoustic music too, and people started thinking electroacoustic music had to be live. [...] So after the mid 1970s, the terminology changed, and François Bayle came up with the idea that we should find a term specifically to describe music on tape. The problem for me was that he found a word – "acousmatic" – which was understood by only a handful of people in France and by nobody else in the world. When I mentioned acousmatic music outside France, nobody had a clue what I was talking about. They couldn't find the word in the dictionary. It didn't exist. You still can't find it in any French dictionary today. In the 1980s I suggested we return to the term "musique concrète", because it's known throughout the world. It's in all the dictionaries. Musique concrète, the art of fixed sounds – I wrote a book on the subject. I thought it was important that members of the public should understand what a work of musique concrète consisted of. So, yes, I still call it musique concrète, and that applies to François Bayle as well as Karlheinz Stockhausen.

In any case it's a pretty widely used term these days and I prefer it over tape music as it's obviously not on "tape" anymore...

[visa tapani]

As an EAM/Computer music survivor (my first pieces were done in music11 on a mainframe), you might imagine that i would have a lot to say on this topic, but i am kinda overwhelmed at work, and pretty darn late to this party anyway, with some of what i would add, already touched upon by other posters.

Well if you can find the time, I for one would be very interested in hearing what you'd have to say...

Horacio Vaggione (wildly underrated composer)

I think the only Vaggione piece I've heard is Thema (for bass saxophone & tape) which is a very nice hard-hitting piece, quite different from the EA mainstream. Any other Vaggione recommendations?

BTW- I heard the piece on one of the Wergos Computer Music Currents -discs, which is relevant to this thread as it's a multi-part series focusing essentially on latter-day EA. It contains works of wildly varying quality, but some of it is very good.

Also, let us not forget that Dufour's label MOTUS is also a leading publisher of new acousmatic work

Never heard of it, any recommendations?

Also, even though the OP requested that we'd keep the emphasis off Metamkine, I noticed that there's no Metamkine thread at IHM, so maybe touching on them would be relevant for this thread? So, any Metamkine recommendations that would fit this topic?

[jon abbey]

not much to add to this thread, but...

And Marcus Schmickler's music as well, at times sometimes has a bit of an EAM vibe to it.

earlier tonight I remembered Marcus' Wabi Sabi disc, which really blew me away when it came out in 1996. the PR:

"wabi sabi is a staggering sounding, beautifully packaged and simply significant contemporary electronic album by marcus schmickler out of the thriving german underground music scene. schmickler has one release under his own name on the odd size label in france, and was a contributing member of pol and kontakta on the same label. most recently he released the exceptional pluramon pick up canyon album on the mille plateaux label (which featured the guest drumming of jaki liebezeit). this cd consists of two pieces: "wabi sabi" -- a devastating 33 minute 2-channel spatial composition that mixes gorgeous flowing electronics ala francois bayle with moments radio-static density and transcending sound waves. "param" is a shorter work of 2-channel, powerfully droning electronics. "the pair of terms wabi and sabi are expressions of an attitude towards life that draw the power of artistic creation from silence and decay."

[JrF]

throwing my hat in the ring as someone who uses composition, improvisation & creates a lot of that with 'field recordings' I can say that there are fewer & fewer folks at the more creative end of FR that find terms such as acoustmatic or soundscape appropriate or comfortable. They serve a purpose at times, mostly in terms of paperwork & in an acedemic setting, but they are increasingly restrictive and somewhat imposed rather than applied by those involved.

I'm not sure the Francisco Lopez disc mentioned in an earlier post can really be termed musique concrete either - unless one assumes that anything that stitches recordings together in thatw ay is MC. still....