From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Hello Karl,
you quoted me and commented further down; fabulous first-hand witnessing!
Thanks.
However, I need to make one clarification about Respighi's bird recording: it
was not any old bird, it was one of Karl Reich's recordings from Bremen,
which was acoustic, and the Italian Disco per Gramofono record number
featured in the score. It would not have been intended to be electroacoustic,
but mechanical music.
I am very conscious of the taxonomy of the various phenomena that we deal
with in the various aspects of sound and music; I tried to present some of
this approach at the ARSC Conference in Philadelphia when giving a very
precise description of what it was that Edison had actually done; however
there are very few philosophers about and those there are prefer their own
philosophising -- just like I prefer mine.
When I have a bit more time I shall visit the website you refer to.
Kind regards,
George
P.S. All elephants are animals, but not all animals are elephants.
> --- On Sun, 4/10/11, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello Karl,
>
> this is a very tempting distinction, but unfortunately loudspeakers are
> used
> for other things as well, such as in PA, radio, and the reproduction of --
> try to imagine it, it did exist at one time -- sound, which has not gone
> through post-production. I very deliberately did not say "non-manipulated
> sound", because choosing, setting up, and balancing microphones are that,
> just like aiming the camera after having chosen focal length, diaphragm,
> time, possibly filters, is manipulation. I have yet to classify listening
> to
> live sounds via hearing aids!
>
> I may possibly be preaching to the converted and I have not accused you of
> sharing the man's views.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> **************************************************Indeed, I should have
> clarified...and hopefully I won't run on too long...
> I believe that Vladimir was suggesting that any music through loudspeakers
> was electronic music. In the hour or two of discussion before he made his
> statement, all of us in the room were putting forth our notions of the
> various ways electronics had been used in the creation of music. We were
> looking for a definition that would help to define the music that would be
> considered under the umbrella of the Society. Many of us had very differing
> perspectives. As I recall the group included Laurie Spiegel (we met in her
> loft), Barry Schrader, Russell Pinkston, myself, and Ussachevsky. All of us
> were practitioners as well being informed of the history of the application
> of electricity in the production of sound. So, we were, as I recall,
> stretching the limits of what might be included under the umbrella of an
> organization devoted to "electroacoustic" music. For example, would the use
> of a recording of a bird in Respighi's Pines of Rome, or more recently,
> Rautavaara's Cantus Articus classify those works as electroacoustic.
> I recall that when Vladimir said "loudspeakers," several of us questioned
> his thinking. He stuck by his statement. When I reflected on what he said,
> the more I thought about it, the more I agreed. For me, for music to be
> "electronic" it must come through some sort of a loudspeaker, and
> conversely, I was left to wonder if any music coming through a loudspeaker
> was electronic.
> As you have written, given the limitations of our technology, there is still
> some sort of manipulation present in the process of recording. We
> "recompose" music whenever we manipulate the volume control.
> In closing, I would like to add a "bit" about my favorite new "gadget."
> http://www.1bitsymphony.com/
> For me, it is something of a non-verbal metaphor.
> Best wishes,
> Karl
|