E. Lyon: Do We Still Need Computer Music?

by lawrence

Eric Lyon kindly permitted us to publish his talk on MusicAcoustica 2006 titled Do We Still Need Computer Music?, It is, IMHO, the most relevant paper for non-academic sound artists and laptop performers.

Besides this talk and the diffused concert at the Central Conservatory, Lyon also played a fantastic set at the vital local new music venue D-22. Photos of that gig will be uploaded soon.

He’s also the co-author of the Max/MSP objects FFTease.

Do We Still Need Computer Music?, by Eric Lyon.




5 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. The underlying ideas here seem pretty simple: The only utility for the term ‘computer music’ that Lyon is able to demonstrate is the initial “instrumental” definition, meaning that his activity has been categorized according to the tool he uses, rather than what he does with it (the ‘genre’ definition proves too unwieldy to clarify anything).

    This definition illustrates why elements of ‘computer music’ have been widely adopted into the popular culture, whereas serialism (which Lyon provides as an example) has not: ‘computer music’ refers to a tool or set of tools, whereas serialism refers to a compositional form (or technique - it’s both). People will adopt a tool if they can use it according to their own techniques, typically within existing forms. They will only adopt a new form or technique if they believe in it.

    All this is entirely unsurprising. In the case of serialism the form is rather demanding, whereas the use of a tool is only demanding to the listener to the extent something demanding is done with it. The only demands a tool makes of a composer are related to its ease of use: The ubiquity of sampling is partly due to the ease of available user-interfaces (it’s unnecessary to learn a programming language, unlike working with Csound, which accordingly has a smaller user base).

    The subtext to Lyon’s article seems to be a social one: popular culture provides venues for the adoption and dissemination of new tools adapted specifically to the traditional compositional techniques of popular music (viz. anything easily danceable), whereas the same does not obtain for novel compositional forms or techniques.

    Before we look at the position that ‘computer music’ occupies, we must look at the position music occupies. Personally, I prefer Varèse’s term ‘organized sound’ to refer to own interests and experiences (according to my usage, anything heard is thereby organized), in which listening is defined neither by tool nor genre. What interests me is how we interact with and understand the world of sound we inhabit.

    End of rant.

    Glad you’re getting so much badly needed sustenance there in Beijing.

    Comment by Du Yisa — November 2, 2006 #

  2. Re: Serialism vs. Computer Music:

    Just a relevant anecdote: The last concert of the whole MusicAcoustica 06 festival has two acoustic instruments (piano and violin, respectively) + computer pieces, which sound more like the so-called “contemporary classical” or “orchestral avant-garde” repertoire than the previous nights’ “diffused” acousmatic music. A friend of mine, who’s trained as a classical violinist, pianist and conductor, with few exposure to computer music (of any kind), said to me: “These pieces sound too modern.” How interesting, the quadraphonic GRM concert didn’t sound “modern” to her, but instrumental pieces did.

    Comment by lawrence — November 2, 2006 #

  3. Genre is inherently a more complicated subject than instrumental category as my talk makes clear. I’m sympathetic to a view of music that is completely divorced from the concept of genre. But then one should not confuse the judgment “not clarifying to me” with “not clarifying to people who might be interested to engage with the subject.”

    A terminological point: whatever serialism is, it is not a musical form in the sense of “type of piece” or “type of structure.” Serialism is certainly a set of techniques and can also be viewed as a set of potential musical relationships that can be formalized by set theory. Unlike tonality, serialism is not tightly (or even loosely) coupled to any particular musical form.

    Arguably, to a musician who is both musically literate and computer literate, serial techniques are easier and more straightforward to use than computer music techniques, even with today’s user-friendly plug-ins. However, computer music techniques are much more relevant to the stylistic demands of pop music genres (there’s that word again), and that’s why these techniques are now pervasive in the pop music world, whereas retrograde inversion and M5 transformations of pitch sets are not.

    Comment by Eric Lyon — November 2, 2006 #

  4. Hi Lawrence and Eric

    Many thanks for the feedback. I’d like to address Mr Lyon’s points according to paragraph:

    It is not apparent to me how I have conflated the two judgements you present. Basically, the attempt to establish a precise definition of ‘computer music’ as a genre requires arbitrary distinctions, as your article correctly demonstrates. That doesn’t make it an uninteresting subject ‘to engage with’, but does demonstrate that the term ‘computer music’ has a very limited utility as a reference to genre, and one that leads to greater terminological confusion rather than clarity.

    For what it is worth, in my opinion, this is what makes your article most interesting. It suggests our current terminology (and therefore conceptual framework - at least on some level) can’t adequately describe what is in fact happening. I find this both interesting and exciting.

    I disagree with your comment on serialism (although I agree with your aside ‘whatever it is’, and appreciate the care with which you approach terminology, both in your paper and response to my comment). It is without question a “type of structure” (e.g basic set, retrograde, inverted, retrograde-inverted) for many composers, and certainly for pioneers like Schoenberg and Webern. Although serialism is no longer coupled to a musical form, it has a long history of having been coupled to atonal harmony. I stand by my original assertion that the term serialism refers to both form and technique. However, I agree with your observation that it is not a type of piece, and never asserted it was.

    Regarding the last paragraph: arguably, sure. I can see it.

    To recap: At no point did I intend to say your discussion of ‘computer music’ as a reference to genre was uninteresting, or unclarifying. The term itself is the problem. Your discussion clarified its inadequacy vis a vis genre, and your presentation of this issue was eminently clear and straightforward. The only caveat I would make is that you simply observed something that many outside academia already know (I can’t speak for those inside, since I have little communication with them).

    So, please don’t interpret my comments as an attack. On the contrary, I particularly appreciated how you chose to close your paper: You mentioned that the term ‘computer music’ is still in use, but that as the use of computers becomes more ubiquitous, it may be replaced by other terms (this makes me think of Redolfi’s ‘underwater music’, since most acousmatic music is designed to be propagated through air).

    Many different kinds of music now share the use of computers as a tool, as we all know. What makes them different is how this tool is used. Again, I think this takes us back to social context, which is also where your paper seems to leave us.

    Did I miss something?

    Cheers

    Comment by Du Yisa — November 3, 2006 #

  5. Hi Du Yisa,

    Thanks for your last comments on my paper. I’d like to see if we can take these ideas a bit further. So I’ll ask a few questions now.

    Basically, the attempt to establish a precise definition of ‘computer music’ as a genre requires arbitrary distinctions, as your article correctly demonstrates.

    I would prefer establishing “negotiable boundaries” to requiring “arbitrary distinctions,” but in either case, how is this different from defining any genre? Can we define “punk” without making arbitrary distinctions? This problem seem inherent to genre definitions. Is it more of a problem for “computer music?” If so, how?

    That doesn’t make it an uninteresting subject ‘to engage with’, but does demonstrate that the term ‘computer music’ has a very limited utility as a reference to genre, and one that leads to greater terminological confusion rather than clarity.

    I’m happy to consider this possibility. In fact I tried to raise some possible objections in my paper, which attempts to consider arguments on both sides. But the question must be raised, what is the alternative? I looked at two alternatives in my paper - “electroacoustic music” and “acousmatic music,” and concluded that they cannot do the work that the term “computer music” does. A third alternative is to simply not use genre terms, but that then is avoiding the terminological problem, and thus avoiding a test of how clearly we understand the underlying and evolving body of [computer music or whatever you want to call it] practices.

    For what it is worth, in my opinion, this is what makes your article most interesting. It suggests our current terminology (and therefore conceptual framework - at least on some level) can’t adequately describe what is in fact happening. I find this both interesting and exciting.

    I agree with this completely, and note that this will almost always be the case, under the principle that theory almost always lags behind practice. However we can still attempt to describe what is happening, bearing this fundamental limitation of discourse in mind. From that perspective, the strongest argument against the term “computer music” would be that it doesn’t add value to the discussion. Or one could provide an alternative term that does a better job. I still haven’t been convinced by argumentation along either of those two lines.

    I disagree with your comment on serialism (although I agree with your aside ‘whatever it is’, and appreciate the care with which you approach terminology, both in your paper and response to my comment). It is without question a “type of structure” (e.g basic set, retrograde, inverted, retrograde-inverted) for many composers, and certainly for pioneers like Schoenberg and Webern. Although serialism is no longer coupled to a musical form, it has a long history of having been coupled to atonal harmony. I stand by my original assertion that the term serialism refers to both form and technique. However, I agree with your observation that it is not a type of piece, and never asserted it was.

    My main point was that serialism is primarily a set of techniques, analogous to computer music techniques, and therefore equally accessible to pop musicians. I have since rethought this. Even though serial techniques can be quite simple to employ, they do require the ability to read music, which many pop musicians lack. Perhaps a better example from the avant-garde would be indeterminacy which has not made major inroads to pop music except at the margins. (How marginal one wants to consider Brian Eno is another question.)

    A further parenthetical on serial form - I used the term form in the sense of sonata allegro, rondo, fugue, theme and variation, song form. These are all forms that express tonality in a particular way. There is no analogous form in serial practice. Schoenberg in some of his 12-tone works employed classical forms (e.g. the Suite for Piano) for lack of an alternative. See also Webern’s Piano Variations for 12-tone recourse to classical form. This early serial reliance on existing forms was severely criticized by Boulez in his article “Schoenberg is Dead.” But post WWII serialism has not found a common practice formal alternative and we may within a generation be ready to announce that “serialism is dead.”

    To recap: At no point did I intend to say your discussion of ‘computer music’ as a reference to genre was uninteresting, or unclarifying. The term itself is the problem. Your discussion clarified its inadequacy vis a vis genre, and your presentation of this issue was eminently clear and straightforward.

    I’m not strongly convinced one way or the other about the inadequacy of “computer music” as a genre. Do we have a better term that encompasses the work of, say John Chowning, Paul Lansky, George Lewis, and at times, Xenakis, Aphex Twin and Farmers Manual? We could use “electroacoustic music” but that term is so broad it can cover nearly anything. Any term will be inadequate in the face of the phenomenon to which it refers, but some more so than others. Consider alternative terms like “circuit board music” or “metal music” or “electricity based music.” Each one I think is far inferior to “computer music” for the uses I’m trying to make of the term. So I still need a sketch of the argument that the term “computer music” is so problematic that it is more trouble than it is worth.

    The only caveat I would make is that you simply observed something that many outside academia already know (I can’t speak for those inside, since I have little communication with them).

    Those perspectives would be quite useful to me. I’ve looked at Bob Ostertag’s critique, but I’m quite interested to hear other views from outside the academy.

    So, please don’t interpret my comments as an attack. On the contrary, I particularly appreciated how you chose to close your paper: You mentioned that the term ‘computer music’ is still in use, but that as the use of computers becomes more ubiquitous, it may be replaced by other terms (this makes me think of Redolfi’s ‘underwater music’, since most acousmatic music is designed to be propagated through air).

    I agree, and after my paper presentation, someone asked what I thought of the term “digital music.” My response was that I think “digital music” is a very promising term, particularly if the computer as we know it disappears. Computers keep on shrinking around us after all. But my paper does not address the future. It asks if the term “computer music” has reached obsolescence now. People have strong opinions on both sides of this question, which perhaps indicates some interesting underlying issues about current musical practices using computers.

    Many different kinds of music now share the use of computers as a tool, as we all know. What makes them different is how this tool is used.

    This is true, and is one of the first points I made in my paper. We could argue from analogy that many different kinds of music use the piano. What makes them different is how they use the piano. But does this mean the term “piano music” is now obsolete? My answer is that no, the term “piano music” remains useful in some contexts. And that’s the crux of my argument for the term “computer music.” It doesn’t have to do everything for everybody to be useful. It simply has to be the best term to describe a particular set of (possibly evolving) musical concerns and activities in a given intellectual and social context. I argue that “computer music” still meets those requirements quite well, and that is why it is still useful.

    Thanks again for some stimulating and challenging comments!

    Comment by Eric Lyon — November 3, 2006 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

times.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS.