Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!pasteur!fir.berkeley.edu!maverick From: maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: ICMC reaction Message-ID: <27974@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 19 Sep 90 16:31:27 GMT References: Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) Distribution: comp Lines: 19 > Apparantly such trivialities as rhythmic pulse, phrasing, > and tonality have become unfashionable, as they were not present in > the majority of the pieces presented. It was if I had entered a > demonstration of gated noise generation machines and sound effects > systems, neither of which I consider to be musical in and of > themselves. Not that rhythmic pulse, phrasing, and tonality are musical in ("and of") themselves either! You touch on two classic music riddles: (1) Can there be music without phrasing? [Perhaps a piece consisting of a single event.] (2) What's the difference between sound effects and music? [As far as I can see, only context a.k.a. use, not audible properties. /Music for String Instruments, Percussion and Celesta/ becomes sound effects in /The Shining/.] Sounds like the incomprehension was mutual. Not that I think you're wrong in your general detection of clannish trendiness in the computer-music community! But why should anybody's music "resemble music as [you have] come to know it"?