Nobody appreciates small time electronic music makers/electronic musician for most is a lonely life

[jancivil]

I think if one were to want to defend 'rock music has nothing to do with electronics' as a really true statement will be another matter.

That's my point and I was using DSotM as an example of the daftness of the claim. It's clearly 90 per cent a rock album. But at the same time, those artists were very keen to explore other areas.

Pete Townshend, for example, was very keen on Terry Reilly's work for at least a while. You could argue that taking elements of Rainbow in Curved Air and inserting them into Who's Next might not be entirely what Reilly intended. But there was clear cross-pollination between rock, electronica and the new wave of classical composers who used electronics. It was more than acidhead ramblings and the influence of electronic or electro-acoustic music goes a lot deeper than On The Run across a lot of these albums, from the early 70s right through to the present day. So arguing that rock has nothing to do with electronic music is just risible as well as pointless.

I can understand your reaction. I think these things are the very picture of health in rock music (even as I found Waters' lyrics ultimately of a time and for a certain stage of development).
But see if you can see the other point?

[Gamma-UT]

Tangerine Dream started as a band that was exploring electronics, and creating music that way, WITH electronic means, so, yeah, Atem CAN be considered electronic music (but not Rock).

Wahn is not rock? Hmm, interesting.

Force Majeure is already in the grey area, with some fragments in the electronic music field, but the majority of the algum already in the Rock field. And this in spite of I personally considering it one of their best albums, and way better than Atem.

So, once again, why make the distinction between rock and electronic music? I took me about a microsecond to think of Metamorphic Rocks as being an example of rock and electronic music elements in one. Jeez, the two bits are glued to each other one after the other.

Let's not talk about Faust and Neu - that's another story, but definitely NOT electronic music.

Being as you seem to be hazy on your own arbitrary split between the two, it's probably for the best.

But in general, no, neither Rock nor EDM can be classified as electronic music. And this isn't telling they are minor or less deserving. It just means that the electronic music "umbrella" should be narrowed, otherwise we risk to loose the meaning.

I just think you've picked the wrong term to describe what you want to describe, which is probably really 'electroacoustic music'.

[aMUSEd]

I got into electronic music primarily via rock and modern classical (and some jazz) - electronic just refers to the instruments used, it is not a genre, although there are some genres that utilise electronic instruments more than others. But letting music be confined and defined by narrow genres is pointless anyway - they are a map, not the territory.

[Gamma-UT]

But see if you can see the other point?

I think there is an ocean of difference between one genre not being another (which is fine) and the assertion that two genres have nothing in common with each other. I haven't got enough palms to fully describe how I feel about the latter.

[fmr]

I just think you've picked the wrong term to describe what you want to describe, which is probably really 'electroacoustic music'.

Again you show how confused you are. So, where is the "acoustic" in, for example, the magnetic tape version of Kontakte, by Karlheinz Stockhausen, or Stria, by John Chowning? Electroacoustic is a term that should be reserved for the pieces that mix electronics (being it electronic instruments, computers running software for producing or processing sound, or simply recordings of manipulated sounds) and acoustic instruments, like the version of Kontakte for magnetic tape, piano and percussion. The Kontakte tape version alone is electronic music (yet, it isn't even "played", since it is a recording), and the version for tape, piano and percussion is "electroacoustic music". This arbitrary use of the terminology shows very well how things became blurred, and how easy it is to confuse fields.

Electronic Music is not the same as music that is played in electronic instruments.

[Gamma-UT]

I just think you've picked the wrong term to describe what you want to describe, which is probably really 'electroacoustic music'.

Again you show how confused you are. So, where is the "acoustic" in, for example, the magnetic tape version of Kontakte, by Karlheinz Stockhausen, or Stria, by John Chowning? Electroacoustic is a term that should be reserved for the pieces that mix electronics (being it electronic instruments, computers running software for producing or processing sound, or simply recordings of manipulated sounds) and acoustic instruments, like the version of Kontakte for magnetic tape, piano and percussion.

From "New Possibilities for Electroacoustic Music Performance" by Cat Hope (2011):

"In the article ‘Electroacoustic Performance Practice’, created from a lecture given in 1961, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen attempted to define different areas of electroacoustic performance practice. He described six different techniques; recording, transformation (understood as amplification), preformed (or prefabricated) music, electronic instruments and combinations of all electroacoustic possibilities known."

Do you see any mention of period or purely physical 'acoustic' instruments there? No, neither do I. The term evolved out of 'electroacoustics' in that it was about manipulating sound for effect and is effectively the unification of the French musique concrète gang and the German Electronikmusiche school. For me, it describes the serious end of electronic music quite well.

You keep trying to encapsulate genres by their production method rather than their intent. Thanks for the insults but I feel that somehow it's not me that's confused. I'm not the one trying to define music that I have never heard.

[fmr]

You keep trying to encapsulate genres by their production method rather than their intent. Thanks for the insults but I feel that somehow it's not me that's confused. I'm not the one trying to define music that I have never heard.

I advise you to first read the articles before quoting them, especially points 3. and 4. (start on page 29). BTW: There is what I think is a typo in the article, since the alluded conference was in 1991, and not 1961.
And it is you, not me, that try to define music by their production method (for you, anything that uses electronics is electronic music). OTOH, I am specifying that electronic dance music is dance music (it's not a production method, is it's nature), and trying to establish boundaries on what is a musical genre (as it is) and a production method, things that you and others here commonly blur. And saying you are confusing things is not an insult.

[Hink]

wow you guys are going to drive yourself mad debating these subjects. There's a thread where Gene Simmons says rock is dead, another where no one cares about small electronic music makers and then countless similar threads over the years about what is a producer and such. IMO you need to decide what is important to you, not others. It doesn't matter if you are in it for money, for fame/attention or for the love of making music. TBH I suspect if you stick at it long enough you'll find all of the above are true at one time or another.

Arguing who is the real musician is really a huge waste of time, if someone uses just loops strung together to make music and they want to call themselves a musician or a tailor what difference does it make to me? What music means to me and what music means to someone else can be very different and that's how it should be. You can split hairs all you want but all it will get you is more hairs. For instance electronic music is no different than say heavy metal in the path it can take. Look at what was considered heavy metal over the decades, take a heavy metal song from 1971 and compare it to a metal song from today. They're not even close to the same thing because the genre has changed many times over 4 1/2 decades so who is to say the same is not true when it comes to DSotM being considered electronic music in the early 70's. I'm sorry, back then digital meant something else entirely. I had a digital clock radio when I was in high school that looked like this.



The only reason it was called digital was because of the numbers on little cards that flipped forward, no digital technology there. Now of course digital technology is a whole other can of beans. Back then I was in high school learning machining/tool and die making, setting up CNC machines was a huge part of my education. Now it's all digital, but binary code were words I had never heard. I used a flexiwriter that punched holes into a tape that in turn went into the computer (really just a reader of the tape) to perform precise operations. Now they can make a car with a 3D printer, whoever heard of such a thing even ten years ago?

All I am saying is times change, terms change, tastes change, technology changes, lives change and trust me when I say predicting where the river you're on will go is near impossible. Relax and enjoy the ride, try not to concern yourself too much with the ride someone else is on. If you force it IMHO you will end up backtracking, so call yourself what you want and be yourself. Set yourself goals that will help you along the way, make them reasonable goals (goals you can accomplish (
not the goals of others) and leave open the possibility that it might not take you where you thought when you started.

That's how life is, one thing leads to another and it isn't just music. Those who balk at you, judge you, try to dictate where you should go or what you should do may not have your best interests at heart so dont let them influence you too much. Of course constructive criticism is always good, but take it with a grain of salt because everyone has their own agenda. It might behoove some to steer you off course for their own gain.

I know I had a bunch of expectations when I was young, tried my hardest to force them but still fate took over and the truth is I'm glad it did. I may not have reached the end of the journey I expected, but I am still on that journey and have stopped to enjoy a lot of good times I would have missed if I stayed on the course I set with my ignorant map of how things should go.

Nobody appreciates your music? Do you? You're not nobody, if you appreciate it that's all that matters. OTOH if you dont maybe it's time to try a different approach, if that's the case it's okay, that's how we find our own paths in life

[Gamma-UT]

I advise you to first read the articles before quoting them, especially points 3. and 4. (start on page 29). BTW: There is what I think is a typo in the article, since the alluded conference was in 1991, and not 1961

Your point is what exactly? I'm trying to work out what relevance those points have to a definition of 'electroacoustic music' unless you're now trying to argue that the inclusion of physical instruments now means it can't be electroacoustic.

And it is you, not me, that try to define music by their production method (for you, anything that uses electronics is electronic music).

I don't believe I've made any definition at all, only that the boundary of what constitutes electronic music is so soft that it has little effective meaning, particularly when a term you refuse to accept would suit your purposes far better. Your problem, not mine.

OTOH, I am specifying that electronic dance music is dance music (it's not a production method, is it's nature), and trying to establish boundaries on what is a musical genre (as it is) and a production method, things that you and others here commonly blur.

And doing it without having heard the music of some of the key players in that area. Impressive.

[fmr]

I advise you to first read the articles before quoting them, especially points 3. and 4. (start on page 29). BTW: There is what I think is a typo in the article, since the alluded conference was in 1991, and not 1961

Your point is what exactly? I'm trying to work out what relevance those points have to a definition of 'electroacoustic music' unless you're now trying to argue that the inclusion of physical instruments now means it can't be electroacoustic.

Quite the contrary. The article establishes that "electronic" pieces can now be transformed in "electroacoustic" pieces, therefore, the author is using the same meanings I was, not you. Again, read the article.

And it is you, not me, that try to define music by their production method (for you, anything that uses electronics is electronic music).

I don't believe I've made any definition at all, only that the boundary of what constitutes electronic music is so soft that it has little effective meaning, particularly when a term you refuse to accept would suit your purposes far better. Your problem, not mine.

No, you didn't. For you, anything goes. It has a synth, therefore it's electronic music.

OTOH, I am specifying that electronic dance music is dance music (it's not a production method, is it's nature), and trying to establish boundaries on what is a musical genre (as it is) and a production method, things that you and others here commonly blur.

And doing it without having heard the music of some of the key players in that area. Impressive.

Who said I didn't heard the "key players"? It's your assumption, not mine. I just said that EDM is not in my list of preferences, and that I haven't heard some of the examples you quoted. Are those the "key players"? If so, why? Who gave them that status? Maybe you should add that's in your opinion, no? And maybe also ask yourself if that music is primarily to be listened or to be danced. The answer will pretty much give you a definition of it's nature.

[Gamma-UT]

Quite the contrary. The article establishes that "electronic" pieces can now be transformed in "electroacoustic" pieces, therefore, the author is using the same meanings I was, not you. Again, read the article.

I would suggest you do the same. You glossed over section 2, which talks about primarily performance of electronic works, the example being a piece built around a Max/MSP patch. Despite the misleading subhead, section 3 talks about recontextualising traditional acoustic works with electronics. I don't see what that has to do with the actual definition of electroacoustic music.

The second part deals with recorded music being transformed for live performance as Stockhausen wasn't keen on the idea of just playing it back. The example chosen – Music for Airports - happened to use a live violin. How this changes a definition is beyond me, especially as the point was that the term electroacoustic does not insist on either the presence or absence of acoustic instruments. It has nothing to do with acoustic instruments – it's about sound and the manipulation of it.

No, you didn't. For you, anything goes. It has a synth, therefore it's electronic music.

Yeah, why not? It seems to work for most people. In fact, I'd widen it even further as rock has evolved in concert with electronics technology. You're the one with the problem of trying to define 'electronic music'. No-one else is suffering from that. They seem to be happy enough that it covers a wide spectrum. I've given you another workable option but you don't seem to like it.

Who said I didn't heard the "key players"? It's your assumption, not mine. I just said that EDM is not in my list of preferences, and that I haven't heard some of the examples you quoted. Are those the "key players"? If so, why? Who gave them that status? Maybe you should add that's in your opinion, no?

You made a blanket judgement on a section of music. I'd have thought it would be important to work out its influences and key early participants before making that judgement. But maybe I'm old-fashioned like that.

Here's a suggestion if you want to acquire a spare orifice. Go onto the Electronics Music subforum at Gearslutz and tell them you don't reckon Derrick May is very important to that scene.

Actually, it probably wouldn't get that far as they'd probably assume you were trolling.

[trimph1]

Delia Derbyshire. What she did was Electronic Music.

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

techno

and

rock

and

techno-rock

also, 'rock' uses electronics, in the microphones, amplifiers, p.a. systems, pickups, electric pianos and synths, etc.

but techno-rock probably has more electronics than regular rock.

electronic=everything synth-based prior to the appearance of programmed beats (drum machines, sequencers, etc.).

techno = electronic + steady beat

[aMUSEd]

Delia Derbyshire. What she did was Electronic Music.

Yep

[SODDI]

Delia Derbyshire. What she did was Electronic Music.