Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:27:53.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Style in Electroacoustic Music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

Andrew Hugill
Andrew Hugill*
Affiliation:
Bath Spa University, Centre for Creative Computing, Corsham Court Campus, Corsham, Chippenham, SN13 0BZ, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues for the habilitation of a concept of style in electroacoustic music. It surveys the reasons for the neglect of style, looking in particular at the modernist embedding of electroacoustic theory and the consequences of postmodern genre formations. It considers the extent to which academic understanding of the materiality of music has moved from the analysis of sound to the analysis of media. It offers a critique of notions of sonic inclusivity and the differentiation of electroacoustic music from instrumental music. It emphasises the importance of comparative analysis and understanding the elements of style in electroacoustic music. It critically examines a number of techniques and frameworks for stylistic analysis. It concludes by encouraging the electroacoustic music community to engage more fully with notions of style.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 21 , Special Issue 1: Style and Genre in Electroacoustic Music , April 2016 , pp. 4 - 14
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bregman, A. S. 1999. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Camilleri, L. 1993. Electroacoustic Music: Analysis and Listening Processes. Sonus Contemporary Music Materials 1: 1–13.Google Scholar
Casey, M., Veltkamp, R., Goto, M., Leman, M., Rhodes, C. and Slaney, M. 2008. Content-based Music Information Retrieval: Current Directions and Future Challenges. Proceedings of the IEEE 96(4): 668–696.Google Scholar
The Chemical Brothers 1999. Surrender. Virgin Records XDUSTCD4.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 1994. Audio-vision. Trans. Claudia Gorbman. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, N. 2010. Introduction to Computer Music. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Couprie, P. 2014. EAnalysis. http://logiciels.pierrecouprie.fr/?page_id=402 (accessed 19 October 2015).Google Scholar
Cusick, S. G. 1997. Response to Round Table 3. In D. Greer (ed.) Musicology and Sister Discplines: Past, Present, Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delalande, F. 1993. Analyser le style en musique électroacoustique; Approximation et pluralité en analyse comparative. Analyse musicale 32: 28–33.Google Scholar
Delalande, F. 1998. Music Analysis and Reception Behaviours: Sommeil by Pierre Henry. Journal of New Music Research 27(1–2): 13–66.Google Scholar
Downie, J. S., Ehmann, A. F., Bay, M. and Cameron Jones, M. 2010. The Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange: Some Observations and Insights. Advances in Music Information Retrieval 274: 93–115 http://bit.ly/KpM5u5 (accessed 19 October 2015).Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1982. Analysis and the Composition of Electro-Acoustic Music. PhD thesis. City University, London.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. (ed.) 1986. The Language of Electroacoustic Music. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hugill, A. 2012. The Digital Musician, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jehan, T. 2005. Creating Music by Listening. PhD thesis. MIT. http://web.media.mit.edu/~tristan/phd/dissertation/index.html (accessed 16 October 2015).Google Scholar
Kendall, G. 2014. The Feeling Blend: Feeling and Emotion in Electroacoustic Art. Organised Sound 19(2): 192–202.Google Scholar
Kendall, G. 2006. Juxtaposition and Non-Motion: Varèse Bridges Modernism and Electroacoustic Music. Organised Sound 11(2): 159–171.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 1999. Reviewing the Musicology of Electroacoustic Music: A Plea for Greater Triangulation. Organised Sound 4(1): 61–70.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier, . 1954. The Modulor. Trans P. de Francia and A. Bostock. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier, . 1956. Preface to Paul Damaz, Art in European Architecture: Synthèse des Arts . New York: Rheingold, viii–ix.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier. 1958. Modulor 2. Trans. P. de Francia and A. Bostock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Le Corbusier and Ozenfant, A. 2000. Purism. Trans. R. L. Herbert. In R. L. Herbert (ed.) Modern Artists on Art. Mineola, NY: Dover Books.Google Scholar
Lorrain, D. 1980. Analyse de la bande magnetique de l’œuvre de Jean-Claude Risset Inharmonique. Rapports IRCAM 26/80.Google Scholar
Manning, P. 2013. Electronic and Computer Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattis, O. 2006. From Bebop to Poo-wip: Jazz Influences in Varèse’s Poème électronique . In F. Meyer and H. Zimmerman (ed.) Edgard Varèse: Composer, Sound Sculptor, Visionary. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.Google Scholar
McAdams, S. 1996. Audition: Cognitive Psychology of Music. In R. Llinas and P. Churchland (eds.) The Mind-Brain Continuum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McAdams, S. 2015. Perception et cognition de la musique: Les conférences Alphonse Dupront. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
McClary, S. 1994. Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert’s Music. In Brett, P., Wood, E. and Thomas, G. C. (eds.) Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meelberg, V. 2009. Sonic Strokes and Musical Gestures: The Difference between Musical Affect and Musical Emotion. In J. Louhivuori, T. Eerola, S. Saarikallio, T. Himberg and P.-S. Eerola (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Monelle, R. 1992. Linguistics and Semiotics in Music. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nattiez, J.-J. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Osmond-Smith, D. 1989. Between Music and Language: A View from the Bridge. Contemporary Music Review 4: 89–95.Google Scholar
Park, T. H., Li, Z. and Wu, W. 2009. EASY DOES IT: The Electro-Acoustic Music Analysis Toolbox. 10th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR). Kobe, Japan, 26–30 October.Google Scholar
Radford, L. 2014. I am Sitting on a Fence. eContact! 15:4. http://econtact.ca/15_4/radford_soundimage.html (accessed 18 November 2015).Google Scholar
Ramsay, B. 2012. Analysis of ‘Internal Clock’ by Monolake. http://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/6651/ (accessed 15 December 2015).Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, R. 2013. Analytical Précis of Chime by Orbital: Towards an Analysis of Electronic Dance Music. www.robertratcliffe.com/writing (accessed 15 Decembert 2015).Google Scholar
Reed, T. 2008. Planes of Discourse in Fixed Media Electroacoustic Music: A Comparative Study and Application of Analytical Approaches. PhD thesis. University of Florida.Google Scholar
Roy, S. 1998. Functional and Implicative Analysis of Ombres Blanches . Journal of New Music Research 27: 166–192.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traité des objets musicaux. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 2004. Acousmatics. In C. Cox and D. Warner (eds.) Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Schuller, G. 1965. Conversations with Varèse. Perspectives of New Music 3(2): 32–37.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–126.Google Scholar
Snarkmarket 2007. Musical Genre Name Generator. http://snarkmarket.com/blog/snarkives/music/musical_genre_name_generator (accessed 10 June 2015).Google Scholar
Thistlethwaite, N. and Vebber, G. 1998. The Cambridge Companion to the Organ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, C. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Truax, B. 2008. Soundscape Composition as Global Music: Electroacoustic Music as Soundscape. Organised Sound 13(2): 103–109.Google Scholar
Van Hulle, D. 2015. The New Cambridge Companion to Samuel Beckett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varèse, L. 1972. Varèse: A Looking-Glass Diary. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Whitman, B. and Smaragdis, P. 2002. Combining Musical and Cultural Features for Intelligent Style Detection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Music Information Retrieval. Paris, France, 13–17 October.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. A. 2007. Models of Musical Similarity. Musicae Scientiae. Discussion Forum 4A: 315–338.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 2000. Computer Sound Transformation: A Personal Perspective from the UK. www.trevorwishart.co.uk/transformation.html (accessed 10 June 2015).Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 2008. Globally Speaking. Organised Sound 13(2): 137–140.Google Scholar
Young, J. 2005. Sound in Structure: Applying Spectromorphological Concepts. Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference. McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Zattra, L. 2003. Science et technologie comme sources d’inspiration au CSC de Padoue et à l’IRCAM de Paris. PhD thesis. Paris IV-Sorbonne–Trento University.Google Scholar