Eclectic I

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Technology Journal week 6 Submission

Tech Journal - Forum

Panel of speakers – (From left to Right.) Stephen Whittington, Tristan Louth Robins, Mark Carroll.

What is Music Technology?

Stephen gave 3 separate schools of thought upon this matter. 1. An opinion stated by Xavier Serra.*1 Music technology is a discipline. It is merged from various Places using the application of music in technology. 2. It is an “interdisciplinary field,*2” or 3. “Music Technology straddles the intersection between art and science*3” and there for isn’t a discipline.

A general consensus existed amongst the panel from Marks comment “Music Technology is an Amalgamation of Disciplines.*4 ” Furthering this comment he went on to compare it to how generally University is very singular in its disciplinary focus; i.e. a violinist studies to be a better violinist. The fear was that with such a broad spectrum of things covered under the banner of Music Technology, the course would be “spread to thin.*5”

Tristan stated very incisively “The course has been a vessel to communicate my own specific agenda.*6” This reflects a personal resolution that the multiple disciplinary outcomes of the course are in fact a positive. It gives freedom to discover how the individual wants to take and use the knowledge gained from the course.

Of key importance was the statement made by Stephen that the course was in fact geared toward a creative outcome. Although a component of the course deals with studio engineering, a musical and creative agenda are at the forethought of the course curriculum. I see this as a positive also.

Workshop with David Harris

David played 3 pieces to the class. Milton Babbit’s*7 “Ensembles for synthesiser” was based on Intragul-serialism*8 adapted for the synthesiser. It encapsulated virtuosic use of the synthesiser. Despite its brilliant complexity the piece failed to inspire me.

“Ecutorial” was a serialist piece by Edgar Varese.*9 It utilised various instruments being played in abstract ways. It was the “typical” Varese approach. Putting the sound created in the composition above the melody and harmony produced.

Modernism was a much needed phase in musical evolution. Despite this, I grow personally bored with discard of aesthetic in favour of form that happens in modernist structuralist pieces. The eerie world created in “Ecutorial” was enjoyable for this reason. Even more so for this reason Barry Truax’s*10 piece “Nike I” was a refreshing conclusion to the workshop. Focussing on sounds themselves, in there rawest form.

Audio Arts

The main focus of the lesson was signal flow to and from studio 2 and the dead room for “talkback” and headphone monitoring. The dead room involved the most amount of thought; there wasn’t a direct signal flow from studio 2 into the dead room. The solution was to patch the signal through from the wall bays in the recording space and studio 1. Ben and I worked as a team again in our own time to make sure we were capable of doing everything covered in class. We achieved this easily. The reading was information from the EMU website.

Creative Computing

A slightly more extensive coverage of “Spear” was given to the class as well as a brief introduction to “Sound Hack.” Both programs are very appealing and seem to hold great possibilities when used in conjunction with one another. The readings were the same as last week plus a link to the Sound Hack website.

*1 Serra, Xavier. “Towards a Roadmap for Research in Music Technology.” Online Paper. 2005. (7 April 2006).

*2 Boehm, Carola. “Between Technology and Creativity, Challenges and Opportunities for Music Technology in Higher Education.” Shared Visions Conference. 2002. (7 April 2006).

*3 Mitchell, Helen. R. “Straddling the Intersection” Crossings; eJournal of Art and Science. December 2003. (7 April 2006).

*4 Mark Carroll. “What is Music Technology.” Lecture presented at University Adelaide, 6 March 2006.

*5 Mark Carroll. “What is Music Technology.” Lecture presented at University Adelaide, 6 March 2006.

*6 Robins, Tristan, Louth. “What is Music Technology.” Lecture presented at University Adelaide, 6 March 2006.

*7 Barkin, Elaine. Brody, Martin. “Babbit Milton.” Grove Music Online. 2006.§ion=music.01645 (9 April 2006).

*8 Palisca, Claude.V. “Theory, Theorist. 14. 20th Centaury.” Grove Music Online. 2006.§ion=music.44944.14 (7 April 2006).

*9 Griffiths, Paul. “Varese Edgar” Grove Music Online. 2006.§ion=music.29042 (7 April 2006).

*10 Jordan, Robert. “Truax Barry” Grove Music Online. 2006.§ion=music.44096 (7 April 2006).

Picture References (In order of appearance)

#1 "Stephen Whittington" Adelaide University Elder School of Music. 14 July 2005. (5 March 2006).

#2 "Tristan Louth Robins" Milkcrate Session 6 picture. 24 March 2006. (5 May 2006).

#3 "Mark Carroll" Ben Proberts blog. 30 April 2006. (5 May 2006).

#4 "Milton Babbit" Seamus online. 1 April 2006. (5 May 2006).

#5 "Edgar Varese" Karadar Classical Music. (5 May 2006).

#6 "Barry Truax" SFU Barry Truax (5 May 2006).


Blogger 1337 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:02 AM  
Blogger 1337 said...

Nice list of references. What was your opinion in the forum? Do you think that Music Tech is a segregated area of study, or are all classes as important as each other? You spelt Technology wrong in the title. "Your spelling is so bad, your blood must be 'type-o'"

9:03 AM  
Blogger John Delany said...

I agree with your thoughts on the modernist aesthetic...again it raises the argument between intellectual satisfaction versus emotional/sensual. Most composers seem to straddle the two, however there are some as we know, that are more interested in the process of organising sound, than the sound itself. But then, surely these composers had some kind of musical bent or sound-related motivation in the first place? Otherwise they might as well run a restaurant, employing random processes to generate recipe ideas. Well.....if it's the process that really interests them.....

8:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home