Electro-Music vs Electronic Music?

[blue hell]

[dmosc]

hmm, you know this reminds me of deep blue vs Kasparov. Ok, bare with me.

All music is inherently electronic is some way. Your CD? Electronic. The mic at a concert you go to, electronic. Besides the rare journey into purely acoustic instruments and vocals in small venue (forgive me carnegie hall) settings, most everything new is electronic in some way. Similarly, most everything in chess is computerized.

When deep blue played Kasparov, it was not computer vs human. Both sides had both elements. On deep blue's side, not only was it coded by humans but it was trained by humans and even designed to exploit Kasparov's particular weaknesses. Similarly, Kasparov's side analyzed computer chess programs and even played many training matches of their own to help Kasparov learn his enemy. Both sides were a mix. Just as in music, most everything is a mix between electronic and human.

What is pure electronic? Probably the sound of something generated with as little human input as possible. Still, to me nothing is pure. You still have to turn it on, turn it off, design it, etc. I think the terms electronic music and electro-music all just talk about music with more emphasis on the synthetic or electronic.

The difference between the terms seems to vary on who you talk to but they seem to revolve around varying degrees on the spectrum of human vs electronic. Perhaps electronic music is a general term which can apply to all music with electronic elements (nearly anything) but electro-music is further down the spectrum allowing the electronics alone to create a larger percentage of the sound.

[v-un-v]

The first time I ever heard the expression "electro-music" used was in the early 80's cult magazine "Electronics and Music Maker" (or E&MM for short- as we used to call it then). The then Editor Mike Beecher (I think that was his name?) coined the term "electro-musician". Personally I always disliked that term- much preferring "Electronic-Musician"- but it is obvious why it was abbreviated in that way.

The style of music known as "Electro-pop" was invented/ founded by Kraftwerk back in 1981 when they released the now legendary "Computer World" LP.

Drexciya are an ancient civilisation of African children who learnt to breathe water and start an underwater Utopia-like bubble-metropolis

my 2 pence

[elektro80]

[paul e.]

not exactly sure what the upshot of your point is..nor how it responds to my post

but, it seems you are arguing for a narrow definition as opposed to a general defintion..

.i.e. you are looking for a 'strict' electronic music?

that might be hard to maintain outside of a 'historical' perspective...

which is fine for describing the 'movement' as a social/cultural phenomena, but does not really go toward defining 'what is electronic music' as a whole

which i think dmosc did a fine job of outlining

[paul e.]

[elektro80]

[opg]

[Afro88]

Genres of music have always been very hard to define. But for some reason, when someone says they're into electronic music, I know what they mean. Then it's up to me to find out what style of electronic music they like, by asking about various bands/musicians they might be into or what sounds they like. That's when terms like "circuit bent", "The Prodigy" or "Autechre" get thrown around, and it narrows it down for me and we have an understanding. It is a broad term, and means slightly different things to different people, but like all broad terms, clarification is needed.

However, if someone said they were into electronic music and went on to say their favourite electronic artist is Bernard Fanning (a solo artist who plays with only an acoustic guitar and his voice), going on to say it's electronic because when he plays live there's a microphone and a powered mixing desk involved, I'd think he/she was a knob.

There's no need for a strict definition of electronic music. We all know it's a vague term, and if someone terms something "electronic music" clarification is needed, either through comparisons with other music or by identifying what sounds/structures/methods are involved. Sure there are grey areas, like someone performing a Beethoven's 5th with a sequencer hooked up to a Roland orchestral rompler, but electronic music isn't unique in this way - all genres of music have grey areas.

As for electro-music, I used to have a problem with this site being called this, as it is a term that was already coined to describe the electronic Roland TR drum machine centric music of the 80s which makes things a little confusing when googling for things (that's how I stumbled upon this site coincidentally). But I'm over it now, after 2 minutes of browsing it's obvious that electro is meant as a shortened version of electronic, not the context of 80s electro.

[elektro80]

Good points.
I am however sure that Howard did in fact consider the "star trek" approach I have mentioned in my previous posts and felt that electro-music would encompass both electronic and electroacoustic and the -music would put the focus on the actual music.

Carlo posted a link to the Dunn thingie in this thread: http://electro-music.com/forum/post-81740.html

The text is full of ideology and there is a mission. Page 62 is hot. Here Dunn points out some very interesting issues and all things considered I think he is doing a good job.


First:

[elektro80]

Dunn´s article must be read as a political statement as well as history and analysis.

[elektro80]

Perhaps a bit OT, but I will recommend reading Peter Weibel´s article:
THE APPARATUS WORLD–A WORLD UNTO ITSELF

http://www.vasulka.org/Kitchen/PDF_Eigenwelt/pdf/015-020.pdf


The introduction itself is a wonderful read:

[elektro80]

It must be said that Weibel is also on a mission and his article is a bold attempt at showing an evolution of classical ontological aesthetic
morphing to a semiotic aesthetic. This is good stuff.

[paul e.]

for the risk of over-simplfying

i think the definition of electronic music is a moving target that seems directly tied to the progress or state of music technology

and this connection to technology gives rise to special problems and topics surrounding music that is made with technology

and this forum focusses on those special topics

nowadays, unless you are working with acoustic instruments with live players, we are basically looking at a process that boils down to 'summing/subtracting waveforms'

an electronic process

so, i think we have a really wide defintion and a very open aesthetic...

but don;t get me wrong..i do think acknowledging the 'roots' of electronic music, and its springing from classical-->modernism forms of composition is key to understanding this cultural phenomena

some academics always work overtime to create a 'strict' definition and i think they have their work cut out for them

also those who look to judge aestheticaly wether something is 'real' electronic music based on the percentage of synthesisers or references to 'modernism' or 'semiotic' structures or how many 'real' synthesizers were used is holding a dubious position...

[paul e.]

[elektro80]

[elektro80]

[paul e.]

that authour wrote, quite rhetorically:

"Music now seems hardly
more than a somewhat clumsy excuse for the self-glorification of
musicians and the growth of a new industrial sector."

he has no arguments for this, btw ...

he's bitter about something anyway......

and perhaps looking for a 'golden age'?

that is a natural urge if one feels things are in a state of decline

personally, i do not agree with this..

the 'movement' is still afoot !

it has just changed shape..

perhaps so much so it may seem foreign to some

the electro music movement does not need to be strictly linked to an aesthetic like the one elektro 80 was pointing to ...it's just the historical basis it rests on

it may be more 'popular' now...but that does not mean that it has been co-opted and usurped by this

it's mainly a good thing..

except for the academics seeking a golden age or 'elite' forms of aesthetic

btw... i do not think a 'polkaboard' is the tool of the devil

well sort of..it's fairly evil

[elektro80]

For the actual validity of art, this is something I don´t think we should even take seriously right now. Art itself is something else, but dividing art within the context of this thread into the good stuff, entartete kunst and consumer manure is not really much use to anyone.

I am merely pointing out one important angle on the whole "electronic music movement". By the early 70s it was quite clear that it was being absorbed. Dunn doesn´t like this and his reasons why are probably related to the feelings norwegian black metal heads are having re the exploitation of something that was 100% their property a few years back. He is however also stating many of the visions of "his" movement and these should be noted. There was however no coherent movement, and the actual values and ideas were all over the place, but there was definitively a feeling of "something going on" and the music was of course far from mainstream.


And we are also talking about several phases of the assimilation process. Consider how the KS/TD/Vangelis/Jarre camps have been using EM ( short for electronic music ) as THEIR property. Watching Arne Nordheim and La Monte Young hooligans having a go at the lowbrows at a Jarre convention in a local pub here was really something.

Dunn is however making some good points, but do read the fulll article.

Weibel is also quite entertaining and he is really working hard in order to make his points.

Personally I think that "electronic music" only works as a meaningful concept when used within the historcial context. Used this way it does say something about the progressiveness of the whole thing. It was all about modernity, exploration, a diffuse political mission and what have you. You know, the full Star Trek thingie. Times change, but I still think we could adopt the attitude and some of the ideas. The terminology should be reinvented though.

[seraph]

[elektro80]

THX Carlo. You are quite right. All this is related.

[elektro80]

[paul e.]

[elektro80]

You are right about this, Paul. I think we should be aware that this very community is about the "movement" moving on, evolving and exploring both the future and the current moment. There is an interesting balance here.

[opg]

This has probably been the most fascinating thread I've read since I've been here! I've gotta read more of those articles.

There are so many good comments from everyone I can't quote them all. I think everyone's opinions are valid and only confirm what a big part of this thread is - the continuous evolution of the electronic music movement. This is why there is a movement with continuing changes. We're having discussions about the changes.

One thing that made me feel good was the distinction of the artist who creates music because the technology allows he/she to do so, and the artist who creates music because he/she wants to actually convey a feeling or idea to the audience. Well, this is what I got from it, anyway. If we all began our interest in creating music by asking ourselves, "What am I trying to say to the listener?" the current state of music would be radically different (not better, I must say, because I'm not going to go there ).

However, this way of thinking when creating music makes the idea of genres more complicated. If a musician's thought process is such that "I want to combine a real accordian with a particular Nord Lead patch and a real sitar with the background noise of kids at a swimming pool" instead of "I want to create a 85bpm heavy metal ballad with a guitar soloing with a wah pedal" the way people would talk about, find, and buy music may be very different.

Anyway, that might not make much sense, but now I'm starting to see similarities between this thread and the other thread about global warming and the rise and fall of the earth's temperatures over the past million years. We can't see into the future, and even if we have the data from the past, we are usually biased by what we actually experience in our own lifetimes.

Also, I feel that just as in film, context plays a big role. For example, it is theoretically impossible to create a film without having something from your present society leaking into it. A very basic example would be fantasy films of the 30s and 40s containing undertones of war. Think of "The Wizard of Oz." Indeed, lyric-less electronic music is harder to evaluate than a film, but I think it is possible.

Knowledge is power!