#reading week 8

[pierre-d-blog]

Electronic and Instrumental Music - Karlheinz Stockhausen

What struck me the most in Stockhausen's writing is his distinction between instrumental music and electronic music, with one of the key differences being the 'disappearance' of the interpreter in electronic music, as only the composer and the sound engineers remain.

While I do agree with that overall idea, I think it is not possible to conceive music without an interpreter, and to assume that this interpreter has to be human-like is limiting. Machines are not magic, they have been programmed and built by humans with qualities and flaws, and they reflect their maker's assumptions and beliefs about how a sound signal -and, by extension, how music- should be synthesized. Therefore, even though the "traditional" interpreter is gone from electronic music, it is only because it has been replaced by a new interpreter, the machine, whose role is, I think, as important, and who should be taken into account by the composer. (extra: johnson's article about the sociology of a door-closer, and how our conception of human actors is too narrow, is exactly what I mean here)

[pierre-d-blog]

Breakthrough Beats: Rhythm and the Aesthetics of Contemporary Electronic Music

So apparently, it is through minimalism that 'high-brow' music, 'art' music, or however the critics have called it throughout the ages, has re-established contact with 'popular' music. Aesthetically speaking, it's probably true -or at least the most likely explanation. However, I'm curious about the other factors that are contributing to the shifting of powers between 'sacred' and 'profane' music. The accessibility of hardware and software, the accessibility of worldwide music through tapes, then CDs, then MP3s, and the lack of formal training from the contemporary producers seem to me as important as how established composers (that is, classically educated) started reconsidering music through the lens of minimalism.

Electronic music, for me, is this point where both established practitioners and willful hobbyists meet, both bringing different experimentations to the table. The rhythm, the pulse, is therefore the meeting ground for these two parties, both by its simple and fascinating nature.

[pierre-d-blog]

Advice to Clever Children - Karlheinz Stockhausen

The most interesting part of the article is clearly the part where Stockhausen has to confront his view on music to what is being made currently by those who are considered mainstream, yet thoughtful electronic composers.

The obvious divide lies in the conception that Stockhausen has of the loop, of the repetition. Despite all of what he said previously regarding him breaking out of the musical tradition that he was taught at school, it still seems that he has particular assumptions about music composition. The loop/repetition is a point of contention, and relates to the bigger concept of considering life as a linear or circular experience. Even though none is better than the other, it strikes me how Stockhausen seems to dismiss the fact that he has arbitrary assumptions about music, while the "clever children" openly admit that their assumption in them composing music is DANCE. This whole exchange reminded me of an interview of a techno producer I read a while ago saying that techno was the exact opposite of what Walter Benjamin was describing in the mechanical reproduction of art. Loops don't always diminish the quality of a sound / an image / a word / an experience. It sometimes makes it better. Addendum: while looking up that elusive interview, I came across a paper from Concordia University analyzing sample-based music in light of Benjamin's work !