Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:02:03.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Do We Know that Varèse Didn’t?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Rajmil Fischman
Rajmil Fischman*
Affiliation:
Music, School of Humanities, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
*
Email: r.a.fischman@keele.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reflects on significant technological, musical and cultural processes that took place since Varèse envisioned the concept of organised sound: understanding these processes may provide a strategic vantage point from which to gain insight into our evolving attitude to modern aesthetic and technological development and thus formulate informed strategic decisions concerning our relationship with the latter. The discussion begins by focusing on technological processes, including accelerated change, cycles of enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval and reversal, and the non-neutrality of technology. This is followed by a focus on musical issues resulting from the decoupling of sound control from sound production, interactivity, the expansion towards time-based media and the possible active role of audiences in the realisation of music. Discussion is then posited within the wider cultural context of modernism and the postmodern era, the eroding popular/art divide and the obsolescence of music as a cultural artefact resulting from technological change. This leads to the conclusion, which identifies tentative learning outcomes that may be helpful in formulating future strategic decisions.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 20 , Issue 1: Special issue: Organised Sound Celebrates 20 Years , April 2015 , pp. 23 - 29
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariza, C. 2011. Two Pioneering Projects from the Early History of Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition. Computer Music Journal 35(3): 40–56.Google Scholar
Attali, J. 1985. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Trans. B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Battey, B. and Fischman, R. 2013. Convergence of Time and Space: The Practice of Visual Music from an Electroacoustic Music Perspective. Oxford Handbooks Online. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199841547.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199841547-e-002 (accessed on 2 June 2014).Google Scholar
Bohn, J. M. 2006. The Music of American Composer Lejaren Hiller and an Examination of His Early Works Involving Technology. Computer Music Journal 30(3): 79–82.Google Scholar
Cadoz, C. 1988. Instrumental Gesture and Musical Composition. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, ICMC-88. Cologne/San Francisco: ICMA, 1–12.Google Scholar
Chadabe, J. 1984. Interactive Composing. Computer Music Journal 8(1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Eigenfelt, A. 2011. Real-Time Composition as Performance Ecosystem. Organised Sound 16(2): 145–153.Google Scholar
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2014. NSA Spying on Americans. www.eff.org/nsa-spying/nsadocs (accessed on 4 June 2014).Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2001. From Dance to Dance: Distance and Digits. Computer Music Journal 25(1): 13–20.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2006. In What Form Can ‘Live Electronic Music’ Live On? Organised Sound 11(3): 209–219.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2007. Living Electronic Music. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists. 2013. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept (accessed on 4 June 2014).Google Scholar
Fels, S. S., Gadd, A. and Mulder, A. 2002. Mapping Transparency Through Metaphor: Towards More Expressive Musical Instruments. Organised Sound 7(2): 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischman, R. 1994. Music for the Masses. Journal of New Music Research 23(3): 245–264.Google Scholar
Fischman, R. 2011. Back to the Parlour. Sonic Ideas – Ideas Sónicas 3(2): 53–66.Google Scholar
Fischman, R. 2013. A Manual Actions Expressive System (MAES). Organised Sound 18(3): 328–345.Google Scholar
Gadd, A. and Fels, S. S. 2002. MetaMuse: Metaphors for Expressive Instruments. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Dublin: NIME.Google Scholar
Gokay, B. and Whitman, D. 2009. Mapping the Faultlines: A Historical Perspective on the 2008–2009 World Economic Crisis. Cultural Logic 12: 1–36.Google Scholar
Kinnunen, T. 2011. Neurocore Interview. Bass Distortion Zine, www.bassdistortion.net/?s=Tuomas&search=Search (accessed on 4 June 2014).Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levitin, D. J., McAdams, S. and Adams, R. L. 2002. Control Parameters for Musical Instruments: A Foundation for New Mappings of Gesture to Sound. Organised Sound 7(2): 171–189.Google Scholar
Manning, P. 1993. Electronic & Computer Music (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McLuhan, M. and Powers, B. R. 1989. The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nattiez, J.-J. 1990. Music and Discourse: Towards a Semiology of Music. Trans. C. Abbate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paine, G. 2009. Towards Unified Design Guidelines for New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Organised Sound 14(2): 142–155.Google Scholar
Rhea, T. 1989. Clara Rockmore: The Art of the Theremin. Computer Music Journal 13(1): 61–63.Google Scholar
Rockmore, C. 1987. The Art of The Theremin. Delos, DE 1014.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. 1993. Interactive Music Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. L. 2001. Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, S. 2000. Interactive Digital Audio Environments: Gesture as a Musical Parameter. Proceedings COST-G6 Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx’00): 25–30. http://profs.sci.univr.it/~dafx/Final-Papers/pdf/Sapir.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2014).Google Scholar
Toffler, A. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Toffler, A. 1980. Third Wave. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Vaughan, M. 1994. The Human-Machine Interface in Electroacoustic Composition. Contemporary Music Review 10(2): 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanderley, M. M. 2001. Gestural Control of Music. Proceedings of the International Workshop Human Supervision and Control in Engineering and Music. Kassel. www.engineeringandmusic.de/individu/Wanderley/Wanderley.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2014).Google Scholar
Waters, S. 2000. The Musical Process in the Age of Digital Intervention. ResearchGate. www.researchgate.net/publication/242255150_The_musical_process_in_the_age_of_digital_intervention (accessed on 2 June 2014).Google Scholar
Wikipedia. 2014a. Sound Recording and Reproduction. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_recording_and_reproduction (accessed on 4 June 2014).Google Scholar
Wikipedia. 2014b. Global Surveillance Disclosures (2013–Present). Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) (accessed on 11 June 2014).Google Scholar
Wilson, S., Lorway, N., Coull, R., Vasilakos, K. and Moyers, T. 2014. Free as in BEER: Some Explorations into Structured Improvisation Using Networked Live-Coding Systems. Computer Music Journal 38(1): 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, T. 1998. Composing Interactive Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar