Talk:Electroacoustic improvisation

Untitled
Good start here, but the big problem is the stress on quietness: actually there seems to be just as much EAI stuff that's extremely loud (ever been to a Gert-Jan Prins solo concert?). I'm less up in this area than I used to be so many someone more with-it can try fixing the article..... if not I suppose I can take a stab. --ND 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * this article is inacurate, it mentions nothing of David Tudor, Gordon Mumma, Nick Collins, The Sonic Arts Union, etc. who are amongst the pioneers of what was often refered to as "live electronics", indistinguishable from so called electroacoustic improvisation, it's decades old.Semitransgenic (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important that the distinction between composed electroacoustic music and improvised electroacoustic music is made clearly and for this reason I think it's good that this entry is not simply merged with electroacoustic music. There is also a clear distinction to be made concerning improvised electroacoustic music BEFORE and AFTER computers were powerful enough to be used as tools in this process. The advent of the computer as a tool for both studying and participating in improvisation massively alters our relationship to improvisation as a process in musical creation, something which is confirmed by the work of trombonist George Lewis with his work Voyager and implied in the design of software such as Max/MSP, Supercolider and Reaktor. I also think the distinction Semitransgenic points out below concerning 'Live Electronics' is useful. The term 'Live Electronics' would seem to imply something different from electroacoustic improvisation in the sense that the electronics in question are being performed with by a musician and of themselves have no direct interface with the environment in which they are being used. The acoustic dimension of 'Live Electronics' is therefore a one way process: the electronics in question simply generate a novel sound. Given this definition, logically, 'Live Electronics' would also include figures such as Jimi Hendrix. The only criteria I see for his exclusion here is one based on style, which would seem misguided. It would therefore seem prudent to clean up the distinctions between all of these different descriptions, placing the emphasis firmly on process rather than style. I also feel that the electroacoustic music page could benefit from this type of scrutiny. Khroustaliov 14:57, 6 August 2008 (GMT)


 * yes there is significant confusion with regard to terms used as style/genre descriptors and terms that relate directly to means of sound production, and it is one that exists in a number of articles. It appears that terminology that once had a very clear meaning, in academic and so called 'serious music' circles, loses its clarity once it moves into the popular domain. The term acousmatic even appears on myspace as a genre these days, funny thing is, a number of artists who pick this as part of their style profile seem to think it has something to do with electrified 'acoustic music' (folk - another means of production to genre crossover). Anyway, what kind of sub-cultural capital does the term 'electroacoustic improvisation', or EAI, currently possess? Is it actually notable enough to warrant genre status on Wikipedia? Semitransgenic (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Icarus?
I've commented-out the lengthy paragraph on Icarus that was added by Khroustaliov: it ran:


 * Another approach to using the laptop computer as a tool for EAI has been taken by Sam Britton and Ollie Bown from the electronic group Icarus (band) who have been active in researching and programming software that attempts to extend the computers musical functionality by drawing on techniques of algorithmic composition, cognitive robotics and machine listening. Ollie Bown has explored the use of Continuous-Time Recurrent Neural Networks (CTRNNs) as generative and interactive performance tools in his research at Goldsmiths, University of London, whilst Sam Britton has helped develop the CataRT concatenative synthesis system in collaboration with Diemo Schwarz at IRCAM.

The entry for Icarus describes it as "electronic drum'n'bass with elements of experimental jazz and rich instrumentation". Doesn't seem to me to be especially relevant to the style of music under discussion here, & I've not come across ANY mention of Britton & Bown as influential figures in the EAI scene. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Certainly I don't see why they merit a lengthy footnoted paragraph when many more central figures just get a passing reference here. --ND (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * this is just more of the confusion mentioned above, it's inevitable, as people struggle to associate niche scenes with one emerging genre description or another, they need names for things. But it also raises questions regarding the very term EAI. The band Icarus engage in electoacoustic improvisation (means of production), that's beyond dispute, they simply don't fit into the EAI (genre) pigeon hole so are excluded by members of that sub-culture. It's just tribalism at the end of the day. Semitransgenic (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Semitransgenic when he points out the apparent limitations of formalising EAI on aesthetic grounds and that was really my point above; that EAI as a musical definition, by virtue of it's name alone is prescriptive with regard to techniques used and is not a genre definition based primarily on aesthetics (like Trance Music, Ambient Music or Glam metal). It would therefore seem to me that EAI as a definition ought to transcend stylistic rhetoric and focus on procedure. Once EAI is defined from this perspective and seen more as an umbrella term that describes an approach to creating music using particular techniques, it will then allow for specific focus on the various formal and musical components that different musicians and practitioners have employed. It will also help elucidate the desire to distinguish individual approaches through sub categorisation and relative descriptions like "New London Silence" and "Berlin reductionism". Until then, yes - the article will remain a mess and also risks excluding relevant work simply because it doesn't necessarily appear coherent from a stylistic point of view. Another example of a group who don't readily fit in with the current description of EAI but who have been very active in researching and developing other distinct approaches to EAI are Furt, the improvising electroacoustic duo of Richard Barrett (composer) and Paul Obermeyer. Khroustaliov 16:30, 13 August 2008 (GMT)

"It would therefore seem to me that EAI as a definition ought to transcend stylistic rhetoric and focus on procedure". WHY WHEN THE TERM SEEMS TO BE USED IN THE EXACTLY OPPOSITE WAY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.189.228 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * it may be worth redefining the article, revert to title 'electroacoustic improvisation', and shift away from the genre centered bias. EAI (genre) can be included as a subsection. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never come across this EAI acronym, though I'm familiar with Onkyo music or lowercase. Wouldn't reductionism be an option here (as suggested by Khroustaliov) since the author of the EAI article focuses on laptop live music plus (mostly tabletop) guitar improvisation in the tradition of AMM? As much as I'd love an electroacoustic improvisation article, a term which is widely understood and used in books or music magazines, I assume this EAI article purposely corners a different niche altogether. If author could just state where the term EAI comes from and who use it, I think things could be acceptable as is. Tellus archivist (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if it was coined by any particular person--I suspect that if you poked around in the archives of the Jazz Corner forum then you might be able to trace some backhistory out of the threads involving the gaggle of cutting-edge improv enthusiasts & detractors around Jon Abbey, Brian Olewnick &c. But the term is certainly common currency on music-related sites that are concerned with this genre of music: try JC, Bagatellen (there's even an article there by Dan Warburton called "What Is EAI?"), I Hate Music, Touching Extremes and Paris Transatlantic, for starters. I'm baffled how you could be following this particular stream of music yet have never come across the term--it's all over the place. The use of three-letter shorthand surely point to its origins in online discussion.


 * Re: postings above: Of course it's all "tribalism"--that's precisely what genre categories are, dividing a field of activity into smaller bits. If the article lumped together everything that used electronics & was improvised, then it would just be itemizing a miscellany of unrelated musics to no great purpose (why bother lumping them together at all?). Part of the point of the use of the acronym EAI (or other cryptic acronyms like the joking "TAOMUD") rather than spelling it out as "electroacoustic improvisation" is that it downplays the specific meaning of the letters & turns it into an abstract word for a recognizable genre. --ND (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but EAI just sounds like textonym blabber to me, that's why I was objecting. I guess if the term EAI is not only forum jargon, it should be possible to quote some article/book as reference. And Warburton should be quoted in the article, possibly in the opening paragraph.Tellus archivist (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heelloo. Is there anything more interested than EAI atm?? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.170.194 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagrements Etc
Aei is not anti-virtuosic per se, the medium does not lend itself to virtuosity, for starters, laptops, controllers, soft-ware has been around long enough for people to develop a high degree of "instrumental control". However, there are many instrumental virtuous who combine eai elements with their, or an acoustic part of an electoacoustic ensemble.

The table top guitar is not "very predominant" in eai. It is debatable whether it is an electoracoustic instrument anymore than an electric guitar is.

Although John Cage employed live electronics, he was adamantly opposed to improvisation.

Eai didnt draw influence from free improvisation, it has been part of it for most of its history. People say are otherwise are ignorant of its history, Johny-come latelys with their apple macs.

viz Hugh Davis and Music Improvisation Company, Gentle Fire, or Tony Oxley and his amplified/ring modulated drum kit, etc. etc

Stockhausen's Intuitive music is little different from free improvisation often performed with electoacoutic elements and treatments.

Why are Morton Feldman or Pierre Schaeffer and musique concrète, are being name-checked other than as name dropping?

I don't think much open-source software is used for eai, PD and Supercollider aren't easy to use. Most common software Max/MSP and audiomulch to a lesser extent.

In all a crap article, with some awkwardly phrased sentences, irrelevances and grave omissions (too anglophone: Musica Elettronica Viva, Taj Mahal Travellers?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.193.180 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)