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

[whyterabbyt]

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?

The output transducers. The 'acoustic' part of electoacoustic referred to the fact that this music had to be reproduced by means of speakers or headphones (Manning, P403; Holmes, p09 etc).

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".

According to Manning the difference would be that the tape version of Kontakte would be classified as 'acousmatic' because it was entirely prerecorded, but both would still fall under the term electro-acoustic. Holmes doesnt make that distinction, but specifically declares recorded-only output as being electroacoustic.

[ntom]

- word wall -

I think I am pretty much with you here on this, but it's been quite some time since I last attended KVR and I guess what my stubbornness missed most about this place were the debates on rather arbitrary subjects.

But excellent guitarists are 10 a penny... All those heavy metal kids, who are in their 20's and 30's now, and who have been practicing three hours a day since they were 13.

Orly? Well gee, if they're that cheap why bother even learning guitar? It's not like I spent the past years with my music TRYING to get live musicians to collaborate with me and have yet to of successfully gotten a single one to contribute. Clearly I was only paying them 1/20 of a penny, guess I need to up my payment to a 1/10 of a penny, but, clearly, I should just give up learning to play the guitar myself since clearly they are so cheap to hire.

Maybe they just didn't want to collaborate with you or your music...

touche. I set myself up for that one.

slapped together

I like that figure of speech, too. Got it from my father who built houses. It indicated something shoddy, though, isn't it.

My point is the convenience of electronic music (going back to the main topic of this thread since we've gotten off track a bit). I opened up my DAW, drew up a selection of some 8-bar loops, then just played "match maker" with then what loop comes in and where. Sure, having some musical knowledge can help the structure of this song sound better, but it doesn't need a brain surgeon to figure this out, any moron can p[irate]ick up a DAW and lay down "baby's first groove" and it sound....meh...as someone mentioned earlier, "to an undiscerened ear, the same as the rest of the garbage cookie cutter crap out there" (may have paraphrased that last part)
When it comes to guitar: let me establish I am absolute RUBBISH at guitar. I've put quite a large numbers into practicing and when it comes to chords, I'm not exactly making a pretty sound, there's often a lot of flatulence in it, a lot of pauses to make sure I'm shifting my fingers to the right chords. Point is: It ain't pretty, in fact I'm often so embarrassed by how awful it is I make sure no one is around the house and keep amp volumes to almost-non-existent.
So even with hours put into my guitar, I still can't chunk out a 3 chord song and join some sort of punk band who just trashes out on those 3 chords.

-Of course, thanks to my DAW I can just cut out the pauses between chord shifts, and if I am having particularly difficult time playing a chord, I just record each note of the chord separately and reconstitute them in the DAW.
I've been aware of the skill and time invested into learning an instrument (I use to play an instrument, so I know the time it takes) and so I find it hard to give the same kind of respect to electronic music as I can to a song with a well done guitar part. Honestly I find it hard to give my own music respect because I feel like it's just tosh considering how easy it would be for literally anyone else to do almost exactly the music I did with little time.

so tl;dr
Electronic music is still a snap and easier to pick up than a guitar, even if the guitarist is just pickin' out 3 chords.

[fmr]

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.

You said it: "happen to use a live violin" - therefore ACOUSTIC - see? Or do you need a picture?

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.

Of course: It has a pipe organ, it must be church music. It has an orchestra, must be a symphony. It has someone singing with a trained voice, it's opera. How simple

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.

Really: The Gearslutz subforum. That's your point of reference

I guess I should have known, by now

[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?

The output transducers. The 'acoustic' part of electoacoustic referred to the fact that this music had to be reproduced by means of speakers or headphones (Manning, P403; Holmes, p09 etc).

OK, I could accept that, but then, everything electronic is electroacoustic - there goes the electronic... I think the term was used in the 60s in the context of what was the technology then. Now, you'll most likely see electronic music most of the time (or computer music, if the composer uses primarily the computer, as Chowning did).

[whyterabbyt]

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?

The output transducers. The 'acoustic' part of electoacoustic referred to the fact that this music had to be reproduced by means of speakers or headphones (Manning, P403; Holmes, p09 etc).

OK, I could accept that, but then, everything electronic is electroacoustic - there goes the electronic...

yes, synonyms exist and terminology gets reappropriated.

[fmr]

yes, synonyms exist and terminology gets reappropriated.

Over my death body

[whyterabbyt]

yes, synonyms exist and terminology gets reappropriated.

Over my death body

what kind of beer you do you want us to bring for the wake?

[fmr]

yes, synonyms exist and terminology gets reappropriated.

Over my death body

what kind of beer you do you want us to bring for the wake?

I don't know - I'm not a beer guy. Perhaps a cup of red wine

[Gamma-UT]

You said it: "happen to use a live violin" - therefore ACOUSTIC - see? Or do you need a picture?

Yes, and not a violin played through a speaker – which would normally make it not qualify for electroacoustic-ness in a pedantic form of the definition – in in one particular piece. And, again, you've ignored other examples from the same paper simply because they don't fit your somewhat weird objections.

Of course: It has a pipe organ, it must be church music. It has an orchestra, must be a symphony. It has someone singing with a trained voice, it's opera. How simple

I think you'll find that church music predates the use of organs by hundreds of years. Top strawman otherwise. I believe it's so convincing it's off to Oz right now.

Really: The Gearslutz subforum. That's your point of reference

I guess I should have known, by now

I wanted a colourful example that describes how it's not my opinion that Derrick May is influential in that scene, because you're too bone-idle to find out for yourself. But whatever.

[fmr]

Of course: It has a pipe organ, it must be church music. It has an orchestra, must be a symphony. It has someone singing with a trained voice, it's opera. How simple

I think you'll find that church music predates the use of organs by hundreds of years. .

Oh, really? At least you know that one .

But apparently, you don't know that electronic music predates synthesizers too

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road

[Gamma-UT]

But apparently, you don't know that electronic music predates synthesizers too

What on earth are you talking about? Are you that desperate to sling mud?

[ntom]

probably not the best example, but an album (not the artist) I really enjoy came from a heavy metal band. It was on my second pass through this album that clearly showed off it's metal influence. I mean, seriously, as electronic as the album sounded, the vocals and song structure was more reminiscent of metal that my mind almost made me think they had guitars going in the album, but as it turns out: Not a single guitar was used in the album.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpI66IDSQGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39B25WbgwSg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRCcOnlmzwo

Honestly I would classify this more as a form of a rock than electronica of any type, but then again, that's just my daft opinion. Actually, I would classify it with 2 tags electronic. and rock.

[whyterabbyt]

probably not the best example, but an album (not the artist) I really enjoy came from a heavy metal band. It was on my second pass through this album that clearly showed off it's metal influence. I mean, seriously, as electronic as the album sounded, the vocals and song structure was more reminiscent of metal that my mind almost made me think they had guitars going in the album, but as it turns out: Not a single guitar was used in the album.

Honestly I would classify this more as a form of a rock than electronica of any type, but then again, that's just my daft opinion. Actually, I would classify it with 2 tags electronic. and rock.

Ah, well, I can see your noob mistake quite clearly. As these tracks clearly exceeds the International Standard Threshold for percentage of Aliased or Bitcrushed Audio (as per the UN ratified I-STABA treaty), they count as 'Industrial'.

[Hink]

maybe why I finish few songs is because when I am done I have to label them and I find no genre called sucky ol' man noodling on P.O.S guitars and amps

[ntom]

maybe why I finish few songs is because when I am done I have to label them and I find no genre called sucky ol' man noodling on P.O.S guitars and amps

If you play foolishly and were a young kid breaking the law, you could always label your music as Daft Punk