Talk:Acousmatic music

Untitled
Hi there,

actually Pierre Schaeffer thought about using the term "acousmatic" instead of "musiceaux" in his "Traité des objets musicaux" which is published in 1966 (Paris) and contains a whole chapter on "the acousmatic problem". So the article is wrong when it says, that the term is first used in 1974 by Pierre Schaeffer.

regards,

Jakob

English as a priotity.
Hi guys,

An article on en.wikipedia needs to be—first and foremost—written in comprehensible English. If you're not a grammar specialist, please do not wholly revert my edit. Feel free to tinker wherever the first paragraph is inaccurate, and add any missing pertinent information.

It's fine to go into specialist detail in the rest of the article, but the introductory section (and the first paragraph in particular) should be written using simple English terms, and should be mainly dealing with:

1) Who in invented it 2) What it is 3) How it is made

InternetMeme (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried to address your concerns. If you need specific sourcing for any of this material please let me know and I will provide accurate referencing in the lead if required. Semitransgenic  talk. 11:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good improvement. Though being an introduction, it could still do with some work to use more familiar English terms rather than specialist terminology. An introductory section should not require readers to reference other articles in order to make sense of what they're reading (regarding terms such as "acousmatic sound" or "musical aspect").


 * One thing I'm very unclear on is the idea of "hearing sounds without seeing an originating cause". How would this differ from ordinary electronic music; or indeed, any music played back via CD or another artificial source? Thanks for the work!

InternetMeme (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * unfortunately this is the nature of the subject. The vast majority of the literature on the subject is academic. I see no problem with linking to other terms, readers will get the elaboration they need there. BTW musical aspect is pretty standard, it's a succinct way to say what needs to be said. In terms of "hearing sounds without seeing an originating cause," yes this can apply to any sound played back over speakers, irrespective of the source or musical style, but I don't see it as something that needs to be spelled out, it's self-evident, no? The article is bare bones right now, when I have time I will flesh it out with relevant content. I think perhaps its better to view this as an article about a compositional practice (one that comes with it's own theoretical framework) rather that it necessarily being about a genre of music (in the typical sense of the word genre). But please, if you have any sources that you think we should add, post them here. Semitransgenic  talk. 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. I should point out that I'm only interested in the introductory section; I want to help a reader who's never heard of the subject to be able to read the first paragraph, and get a basic idea of what the concept is. It's no good at all if the reader is forced to jump to several other articles in order to understand what they're reading. The first paragraph is aimed at non-specialists, and should be self-explanatory. Therefore we can't use terms like "electroacoustic" or "acousmatic" in the first paragraph. The things I'm talking about are unrelated to finding source material, and simply about defining the concept in terms that are familiar to laypeople. Also, in order to do this succinctly, we want to contrast acousmatic music with regular music. Since regular music comes from an unseen source, it's not useful to state that acousmatic music comes from an unseen source.


 * The current definition is certainly an improvement, but I though we could start with something more along "acousmatic music differs from regular music in regards to X" with "X" being a list of those differences. You're obviously better qualified than me to list those things, so if you want to write the differences here that'd be very helpful for me : ) Thanks again for your input!


 * InternetMeme (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm not so sure I agree, people are using an encyclopedia, they are here to learn about things, if jumping to a linked term is too difficult for them, perhaps they need not use the encyclopedia. In terms of the contrast with "regular music,"  again this is not a genre, the point regarding score based music is made in the lead, that should suffice. We don't start articles by stating how the subject differs from something else. It is what it is.  Semitransgenic  talk. 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think both of you have made good points. On the one hand, readers come to an article like this to find out what the term means, and hope to get there sooner rather than later. On the other hand, technical terms do not always yield quickly to simple explanation, and linking terms on Wikipedia ought to assist the reader quickly to find meanings of unfamiliar terms. Nevertheless, the lead is supposed to summarize the article contents, providing an introduction to explanations that will be more fully developed (with supporting reliable sources) in the article. One problem that I see in the present version of the opening is the circular definition of the word "acousmatic": Acousmatic music is defined as music that uses acousmatic sound. Well, we might have guessed something of the sort. Wouldn't it make better sense to jump straight to a plain explanation of the problematic word, rather than throwing it back at the reader? Something like, "Acousmatic music is music produced through loudspeakers, so that the sources of the sounds are not visible"? All that business about "normal music" really will not do, either. As Semitransgenic says, we must say what something is, not what it isn't. Let us try therefore to concentrate on positive statements, rather than negative ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that the intro is circular, perhaps we need a better way to separate the theory and application of acousamtic sound in a compositional context from the notion of "music." This is one of the reasons some have taken to calling it acousmatic art. Reducing it to "music produced through loudspeakers" is an oversimplification, it also raises (unnecessarily) the "well isn't any music played over loudspeakers acousmatic" question, which is valid of course, but there is a bit more to it than that. Semitransgenic  talk. 07:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I'll address some points:

"'...if jumping to a linked term is too difficult for them, perhaps they need not use the encyclopedia'"

In the context of education, this is very destructive attitude to have. We need to put the users first, and consider their needs. We should never forsake the needs of the student.

"'...we must say what something is, not what it isn't'"

In certain contexts, describing what something isn't can be very useful. This applies when a subject is substantially similar to another, except for one missing aspect. As a simplified example, if someone has never heard of a lynx, one might describe it as "a large cat with no tail".

In a similar way, one might describe acousmatic music as "basically the same as normal music, except for the fact that it is produced by an unseen source". Of course there are other important aspects of acousmatic music, which I'm still trying to define.

Also, I have a question: Given that music played via loudspeakers comes from an unseen source, why isn't it considered to be acousmatic? What additional aspects would it need to have to properly acousmatic?

InternetMeme (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All good points. While saying what something isn't may be useful in some cases, it often leads us into a morass. For example, the notorious case of defining "atonality" as that which is not "tonal", which immediately requires explanation of something even more complicated than the original idea.
 * Second, yes, there must certainly be factors important to the definition of "acousmatic music" than that it comes from an unseen source. It used to be a joke in the business that "acousmatic music" was electronic music created in a francophone area, and the term does still tend to be more familiar in a French context than in English, German, or Italian, for example. From the other side of the coin, loudspeakers are not necessary in the definition. In the middle of the 17th century, long before the invention of loudspeakers, Thomas Mace (who, I have only just now discovered, outrageously does not have a Wikipedia biographical article) advocated acousmatic listening in specially designed "music rooms", where the performers could be sequestered away from their audience, who would sit in another room of the house, connected by listening tubes so that they would not be distracted by the visual aspects of making the music.
 * Third, I think you may have the question backward: Yes, of course music played via loudspeakers is "acousmatic". The question should be, under what conditions might music played via loudspeakers not be acousmatic? It would certainly simplify the definition if we simply regarded as acousmatic all music emanating from loudspeakers (along with other music coming from a deliberately concealed source).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You bring some great insights. I get the impression that in distant history, before the advent of electronic amplification and loudspeakers, the concept of acousmatic music was quite obviously defined and meaningful, but in modern times— with unseen playback via loudspeakers being the norm— the concept of not seeing the performers has been greatly mitigated and diluted by over-familiarity to the extent that it now has very little meaning.


 * Would a good definition acknowledge this history? What about "Historically speaking. acousmatic music was music that was performed out of view of the audience, behind a screen or other obfuscation. Since the advent of the loudspeaker however, music performed "out of sight" has become the norm, and the concept of "acousmatic music" has changed, and is now defined as " (with  being whatever definition we come up with)?.


 * At any rate, what I believe I can bring to the table is a good arrangement of the concepts that build an understanding of the subject matter, along with good grammar and sentence structure. What I am still at a loss for is a solid understanding of exactly what those concepts are : )


 * Failing that, how about we just run with "Acousmatic music is electronic music made by French people"?


 * InternetMeme (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, characterising the form as anachronistic is simply wrong, yes traditionally is was associated with Francophones because the theoretical cannon underpinning the art was written in French. But, interest in acousmatic arts/music concrete has grown significantly in the last 10-15 years; particularly in the UK, throughout Europe, and in the US, and a lot of this has to do with the growth of English language scholarship.
 * The other point is, as I said above, the article has yet to be properly fleshed out. Once the matter of spatial diffusion and the concert use of speaker-orchestras has been detailed, it will be clear what the difference is between all of this and simply listening to a stereo hi-fi.
 * The concept of "acousmatic music" hasn't changed, because, arguably, the "concept" (in terms of it being a clearly defined artistic practice within electroacoustics) didn't come about until Francois Bayle specified what is meant by the term "acousmatic music" in the early 70s.
 * Also, we are not here to redefine something that notable sources have already clearly defined. It's up to editors to find out what the sources on the subject have to say and present that as content.There is an abundance of literature on the topic so I would object to the inclusion of anything that is not properly sourced, or anything that misrepresents what it is we are dealing with here.-- Semitransgenic talk. 22:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's all fine, really it is. The only thing I'm interested in improving is the introductory section, and more specifically, the first paragraph. My goal is simply for a regular user, who has never heard of such a concept as acousmatic music, to be able to read the first paragraph once through, and think to themself "ahh, so that's what that means", without having to click any links, consult a dictionary, or re-read any sentences.


 * InternetMeme (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, have taken another stab at it. -- Semitransgenic talk. 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's much better now, good job! I still think there is room for improvement, so I might have a go at it later on, but it's now good enough for a lot of normal people to understand. InternetMeme (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Acousmatic music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815151147/http://cec.sonus.ca/contact/contact82Dhom.html to http://cec.sonus.ca/contact/contact82Dhom.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)