Talk:Electroacoustic music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Merging[edit]

Why don't we merge ALL the techno music things together? And just have a little paragraph for each of the different genres.The Clydelishes Clyde 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume by "techno" you mean electronic music, because electroacoustic music is not techno. The reason why not is because there is a lot to be said about some of the different genres which can actually be referenced. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The list[edit]

Should that list be cut off to a seperate article? I can tell it took a long time to write, but it's far too long to be included here. Maybe if it were blue links only it would be okay. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By "the list", I presume you mean the list of "acousmatic composers" which, by the definition of acousmatic music offered in the article, means just about anybody who has used electronic means to produce music. While I agree that this list has gotten completely out of control (and I suspect a lot of the redlinks are self-nominated), I don't think the answer is to split it off into a separate article, where it would be just as unencyclopedic as it is in its present location. I suspect the problem stems from the fact that a word like "significant" or "prominent" was not included in the section title, which openly invites putting everyone and his/her three best friends on the list. The first step, then, is to qualify the list title in order to help make clear that this is not a public notice board. Then the redlinks need to be investigated, to see whether any merit keeping (as, for example, John McGuire certainly does—I only just discovered he was incorrectly bluelinked to a different person of the same name, and fixed this, but haven't yet written an article about him, as I mean to do).--Jerome Kohl 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've begun the task of trying to confirm notability for the names on this list. I hope I am not treading on any toes in the process, and if my research skills are found to be wanting, by all means restore any names I have deleted, but please add a note in either the Edit Summary or here on the Talk page, indicating where evidence of notability has been found.--Jerome Kohl 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the list should be separated and moved to a stand alone list named acousmatic composers with a few notable composers mentioned. Perhaps the few notable composers copuld be referenced in notable lists of particular styles/genres. Placing all the composers on a stand alone list would allow for the red links to fill in organically and give rise for a more comprehensive list of acousmatic composers.VoxNovus 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Jerome, I suggest splitting the list by countries, this would help allot, the other thing is that acousmatic music is a very particular term created in France, for me personally I would say electroacustic composers which is much wider and open.
Best: Manuel Rocha Iturbide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manroit33 (talkcontribs) 15:14, August 18, 2007
You are correct about the term being French in origin (perhaps this should be specified in the article), but even in a French context it is rather vague and all-embracing. Also, the term is in common use in a number of other countries (e.g., Canada, Brazil), not to mention composers from elsewhere who have studied in France or worked at French institutions. That said, I think you have a good point: it looks odd (considering the article's title) to have a section titled "Notable acousmatic composers", and not to have other lists such as "Notable musique concrète composers", "Notable computer-music composers", "Notable electronic-music composers", etc.--Jerome Kohl 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that today Doctormatt has at last done what inevitably had to be done with this list, and removed all the remaining redlinks. While I think that a few of these names, in particular Herbert Brün, Lelio Camilleri, Agostino Di Scipio, Paul Gredinger, Wlodzimierz Kotonski, Cort Lippe, John McGuire, Ivo Malec, Flo Menezes, and Makoto Moroï are more notable—at least as composers of electroacoustic music—than some blue links which remain, such as Boris Blacher, Olivier Messiaen, Robert MacKay, Stephan Dunkelman, Karl Gottfried Brunotte, or Daniel Leduc, for example, I think that any of us who feel some of these names should be restored will accept the challenge to create an article in each case demonstrating why they are notable, so they will become bluelinks like the others.--Jerome Kohl 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've spotted another name in the list that is incorrectly linked: the Simon Emmerson that is linked to is not the Simon Emmerson who is intended (the editor of two books in the references and once of City University in London.) I know enough about him to begin an article on him, but am new to wikipedia and therefore need to learn a bit about how to deal with disambiguation before I do so. Magentamansions (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about the linked name being the wrong person. I have little enough experience myself with disambiguation links, but I have seen two approaches to this. One is to simply put a note at the head of the older article, pointing out the ambiguity and providing links to the other article or articles (for a rather clumsy example, see John Bull and the linked John Bull (disambiguation)). In this case, however, I think the other option would be better, which is to rename the present article—perhaps to "Simon Emmerson (recording engineer)"—and create a new article "Simon Emmerson (composer)". Then create a disambiguation page named simply "Simon Emmerson", stating "Simon Emmerson may refer to . . ." followed by a list of the various Simon Emmersons with the appropriate links. (For examples, see Ben Johnston and Jonathan Harvey (disambiguation). Perhaps someone with more experience can improve on this suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is for instance Heavy Metal music or Punk rock subsets of Electroacoustic music? Also, per the article's categorization it looks as if it is a subset of electronic music instead of as superset, as the article states. I find the article rather confusing as the introduction gives the impression that mostly all of modern popular (and pop) music genres comes into this as a super-genre or umbrella genre. However, the narrative following this gives a contradicting impression of Electroacoustic music being rather removed from typical youth oriented popular music. __meco 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual definition of electroacoustic music would include rock, and other pop genres; however, as a genre of music it would be considered a subset of contemporary classical music (another misnomer)VoxNovus 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Manuel Rocha Iturbide: Literallly, any music played in speakers (like classical music) is electroacoustic music, but the truth is that the electroacoustic music term has beend used by contemporary classic music electronic composers. Me being one, and having sutidied in USA and Europe, I can tell, but cataloging things will always be confusing and difficult, that's for shure.
The problem with the electronic music term, is that today it is regarded as POP and POP experimental electronic music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manroit33 (talkcontribs) 15:18, August 18, 2007

Missing information[edit]

Why is prepared guitar, third bridge-guitar, Keith Rowe, Audio feedback (as a playing technique), circuit bending missing in this article? There too many subjectivity (heavily hanging on the academic classical art music) in this topic. Please put in something about other forms of electroacoustic sound too. Electroacoustic is not only electronic music.Houtlijm 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia is all about subjectivity of the masses! Why is only feedback or circuit bending mentioned mentioned, when they are no more prominent a technique than convolution, distortion, phasing, or frequency modulation (actually they seem confined to one instrument)? They are all just techniques used by composers. If someone is going start making a list, it might as well be a comprehensive one, researched and referencing the various musical practices and its main ground breaking artists(no necessarily the well known ones).-Jean routhier (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitions[edit]

It would be helpful for readers if there was a distinction made bewteen the historal usage of the term in western art music and the more recent adoption of the term by non-academics; to describe any type of electronically augmented acoustic emanation. This whole muddle surrounding definitions would quickly vanish. It seems people are all to eager to forget the vast body of work that exists as a result of academic enquiry and avant garde experimentation; because populism is currently in vogue.Semitransgenic (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pruning, revisited[edit]

When pruning "the list" was last discussed, in February 2008, there were 113 names in the list. There are now 136, and the separate List of acousmatic-music composers, which was supposed to be a more inclusive list (and is advertised as such in this article) has only about 175 names in it. User:Deskford and myself have noticed a recent flurry of vandalisme, evidently aimed at reducing the number of English, American, and German names in the list and replacing them with often obscure, sometimes even red-linked French ones. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to reassess this over-long list, and try to work out some way of effectively limiting it. For a start, I think it would be a good idea to follow the procedure used in the article 20th-century classical music, where names actually occurring in the article text are not duplicated in the list, which should be retitled "Other notable electroacoustic composers", with a cautionary editorial note pointing this fact out, as well as expressing the intention of incorporating as many of the names as possible into the text, and removing them from the list of "also rans". Then we can start discussing which of the remaining names are not sufficiently notable to leave here, and should be removed to that other, less selective list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That would seem a good idea. An alternative would be to remove the list from this article altogether and just have a "see also" link to the separate list article. We have far too many indiscriminate lists on Wikipedia, many of which are partial duplicates of one another. And anonymous French IP editors, whoever you are, please add your opinions to the discussion here, where they will be valued. --Deskford (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

D'accord. Si vous ne parlez pas bien l'anglais, n'hésitez pas à écrire en français. Quelqu'un ici peut se traduire. (Yes, indeed. If you do not speak English well, please feel free to write in French. Someone here will translate.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there has been no further discussion, I have moved the few non-duplicated names from this list to the larger one, and deleted the list here in favour of the more indiscriminate List of acousmatic-music composers, following the suggestion made by Deskford.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, c'est une tres bonne idee, des listes a n'en plus finir, sans contexte, ça ne veut rien dire pour la lectrice moyenne qui visite wikipedia.-Jean routhier (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

[Transl.: Yes, it's a very good idea. Unending lists with no context mean nothing to the average Wikipedia reader.]
Des directives Wikipédia décourager listes indiscriminée en tout cas. Merci pour votre observation. (Wikipedia guidelines discourage indiscriminate lists in any case. Thanks for your comment.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro defintion[edit]

I found the intro not particularly informative. I have no idea what electroacoustic music is, and the first paragraph didn't help me at all, instead immediately launching into history (which is also the first section.) Can someone edit to provide a (reductive, if necessary) summary definition?Asasa64 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

it's a vague term as it stands, and here we are trying to limit the definition to the use of the term in academic music circles (for the sake of simplicity) and in that context the lead pretty much spells it out. Really it's just a label that composers working in the field of so-called "serious music" (Western art music) decided to use when describing what it was they were doing (combining instrumental music in the Western art music tradition with electroacoustic technology). Semitransgenic (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations[edit]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged, Hyacinth. I have removed the stale tags, along with the challenged material.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2012(UTC)
eh? not so quick, relative to the amount of literature on the subject this article is a bit of a joke right now and could be improved with actual RS content. For example, have any of you read this passage lately?
"Tape music is a form of music which began soon after tape recording was invented, as people could now create sounds that were for the first time identical with each performance. Users of this new technology began to develop a new musical ethic around the idea of the created artificial sound; as now music no longer had to be related to live performance of instruments, but now, the recording itself is the performance."
no citation offered, it may sum up what could be said on the matter, but it is very poorly written, definitely not to encyclopaedic standards. -- Semitransgenic talk. 14:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. So why not flag the specific offending passage, instead of restoring a vague and long-out-of-date banner that fails to answer Hyacinth's question? Oh. look, someone has done just that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)