Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:55:58.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘All the Musics Which Computers Make Possible’:1 Questions of genre at the Prix Ars Electronica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

Christopher Haworth
Christopher Haworth*
Affiliation:
Leeds Humanities Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
*
Email: christopher.p.haworth@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the workings of genre in experimental electronic musics. Predominantly sociological in orientation, it has three main foci. First, it addresses practitioners’ and theorists’ resistances to the concept of genre in experimental musics. Drawing on recent developments in genre theory, it discusses the problems of agency, mediation and scale that any discussion of genre calls forth, pitting them alongside theories that emphasise genre’s necessity and inevitability in communication. The second section examines the politics of genre as they play out in practice, focusing on the Prix Ars Electronica festival and the controversy that ensued from the decision to change the name of the Computer Music category in 1999. The analysis focuses on issues of institutional mediation, historicity, genre emergence and the politics of labelling as they come into view when two broad spheres – electroacoustic art music and ‘popular’ electronic music – are brought into the same field together in competition. The third section deepens the analysis of Ars Electronica by zooming in on one of the represented genres, microsound, to examine how it is shaped and negotiated in practice. Using digital methods tools developed in the context of Actor-Network Theory, I present a view of the genre as fundamentally promiscuous, overlapping liberally with adjacent genres. Fusing Derrida’s principle of ‘participation over belonging’ with ANT’s insistence on the agency of ‘non-human actors’ in social assemblages, the map provides a means to analyse the genre through its mediations – through the varied industries, institutions and social networks that support and maintain it.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 21 , Special Issue 1: Style and Genre in Electroacoustic Music , April 2016 , pp. 15 - 29
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.)

Footnotes

1

The title is taken from Bob Ostertag’s 1996 article that followed his stint as Ars Electronica juror. Ostertag asked ‘Why this emergence of Computer Music, instead of an openness to all the musics that computers make possible?’

References

Ars Electronica. 1990. Statement of the Computer Music Jury. http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/prix_archive/prixJuryStatement.asp?iProjectID=2575.Google Scholar
Ars Electronica. 1996. Statement of the Computer Music Jury. http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/prix_archive/prixJuryStatement.asp?iProjectID=2557.Google Scholar
Ars Electronica. 1997. Avoid those Clichés! http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/prix_archive/prixJuryStatement.asp?iProjectID=2561.Google Scholar
Ars Electronica. 2005. Plunderphonics by John Oswald. http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/prix_archive/prix_projekt.asp?iProjectID=13317.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. 1993. Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice in Music. New York: Da Capo.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans.Vern W. McGee. Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barber, K. 2007. The Anthropology of Texts, Persons and Publics: Oral and Written Culture in Africa and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, G. 1987. On Modern Music Culture: Shock, Pop and Synthesis. New Formations 2: 51–78.Google Scholar
Born, G. 1995. Rationalizing Culture: IRCAM, Boulez, and the Institutionalization of the Musical Avant-Garde. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, G. 2005. On Musical Mediation: Ontology, Technology and Creativity. Twentieth-Century Music 2(1): 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, G. 2010. For a Relational Musicology: Music and Interdisciplinarity, beyond the Practice Turn: The 2007 Dent Medal Address. Journal of the Royal Musical Association 135(2): 205–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, G. 2014. Time, the Social, the Material: For a Non-Teleological Analysis of Musical Genre. Music and Genre: New Directions [Conference]. Schulich School of Music, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada, September 27–8.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brackett, D. 2005. Questions of Genre in Black Popular Music. Black Music Research Journal 25: 73–92.Google Scholar
Brackett, D. 2015. Popular Music Genres: Aesthetics, Commerce and Identity. In A. Bennett and S. Waksman (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brassier, R. 2009. Genre is Obselete. In A. Iles and M. Iles (eds.) Noise and Capitalism. Sebastian: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia-Arteleku.Google Scholar
Cascone, K. 2000. The Aesthetics of Failure: ‘Post-Digital’ Tendencies in Contemporary Computer Music. Computer Music Journal 24(4): 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cascone, K. 2009. Vague Terrain 15: .Microsound. http://vagueterrain.net/journal15.Google Scholar
Cascone, K., Mouat, P. and Saylor, J. 1999. Microsound Mailing List. http://Microsound.org/.Google Scholar
Chester, A. 2000. Second Thoughts on a Rock Aesthetic. In S. Frith (ed.) On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cowan, A. 2003. Kid606 – Ultrahang Festival, MPIII.com. www.mpiii.com/UpDownload-index-req-viewdownloaddetails-lid-1853.html (accessed 23 June 2015 via https://web.archive.org/).Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 2004. A Thousand Plateaus. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
Demers, J. 2010. Listening Through the Noise: The Aesthetics of Experimental Electronic Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. and Ronell, A. 1980. The Law of Genre. Critical Inquiry 7: 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drott, E. 2013. The End(s) of Genre. Journal of Music Theory 57: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2007. Living Electronic Music. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Fabbri, F. 1982. A Theory of Musical Genres: Two Applications. In D. Horn and P. Tagg (eds.) Popular Music Perspectives. Göteborg and London: International Association for the Study of Popular Music.Google Scholar
Feld, S. 2012. Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Frith, S. 1996. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frow, J. 2005. Genre Worlds: The Discursive Shaping of Knowledge. Arena Journal 23: 129–146.Google Scholar
Gell, A. 1992. The Anthropology of Time. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Gross, J. 1997. Aphex Twin Interview, Perfect Sound Forever. www.furious.com/perfect/aphextwin.html (accessed 23 June 2015).Google Scholar
Haworth, C. (forthcoming, 2016). Protentions and Retentions of Xenakis and Cage: Nonhuman Actors, Genre and Time in Microsound. Contemporary Music Review.Google Scholar
Haworth, C. (forthcoming, 2016). Algorithmic Music and the Social. Oxford Handbook of Algorithmic Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegarty, P. 2007. Noise Music: A History. New York: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrington, T. 2001. Prix Ars Electronica. The Wire 208: 16.Google Scholar
Hesmondhalgh, D. 1999. Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre. Cultural Studies 13: 34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, S. 2013. Experimental Electronica Beyond the Great Divide. Unpublished dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Hofer, S. 2014. ‘Atomic’ Music: Navigating Experimental Electronica and Sound Art Through Microsound. Organised Sound 19: 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, F. 2007. Genre in Popular Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humon, N. 1998. The Conquered Banner … Bring on the Noise! http://90.146.8.18/en/archives/prix_archive/prixJuryStatement.asp?iProjectID=2594 (accessed 20 October 2015).Google Scholar
Jauss, H. 1982. Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kronengold, C. 2008. Exchange Theories in Disco, New Wave, and Album-Oriented Rock. Criticism 50: 43–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, L. 2006. Electroacoustic Music Studies and Accepted Terminology: You Can’t Have One without the Other. EMS: Electroacoustic Music Studies Network. www.ems-network.org/IMG/EMS06-LLandy.pdf (accessed 3 January 2016).Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S. and Boullier, D. 2012. ‘The Whole Is Always Smaller Than Its Parts’ – A Digital Test of Gabriel Tardes’ Monads. The British Journal of Sociology 63(4): 590–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. and Hassard, J., eds. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
McDonald, G. 2013. Every Noise At Once. http://everynoise.com/engenremap.html (accessed 20 October 2015).Google Scholar
McLeod, K. 2001. Genres, Subgenres, Sub-subgenres and More: Musical and Social Differentiation within Electronic/Dance music Communities. Journal of Popular Music Studies 13(1): 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S. 1980. Genre. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
Negus, K. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, P. 1995. The Politics of Time: Modernity and Avant-Garde. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Ostertag, B. 1996. Why Computer Music Sucks. http://bobostertag.com/writings-articles-computer-music-sucks.htm (accessed 20 October 2015).Google Scholar
Phillips, T. 2006. Composed Silence: Microsound and the Quiet Shock of Listening. Perspectives of New Music 44(2): 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piekut, B. 2014. Actor-Networks in Music History: Clarifications and Critiques. Twentieth-Century Music 11: 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, N. 2008. Putting a Glitch in the Field: Bourdieu, Actor Network Theory and Contemporary Music. Cultural Sociology 2: 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, S. 2013. Simon Reynolds on the Hardcore Continuum. The Wire 300. www.thewire.co.uk/in-writing/essays/the-wire-300_simon-reynolds-on-the-hardcore-continuum_introduction (accessed 20 October 2015).Google Scholar
Roads, C. 2001. Microsound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. 2002. The Issue Crawler: The Makings of Live Social Science on the Web. EASST Review 21(3/4): 8–11.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traité des objets musicaux. Paris: : Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-shapes. Organised Sound 2(02): 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, D. 2007. Space-Form and the Acousmatic Image. Organised Sound 12(1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, W. 1991. Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music. Cultural Studies 5: 368–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, P. 2004. Atoms and Errors: Towards a History and Aesthetics of Microsound. Organised Sound 9: 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toynbee, J. 2000. Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Tzanetakis, G. and Cook, P. 2002. Musical Genre Classification of Audio Signals. Speech and Audio Processing. IEEE transactions on 10(5): 293–302.Google Scholar
Xenakis, I. 1992. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition. New York: Pendragon Press.Google Scholar