Jump to content

Talk:Music On A Long Thin Wire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length

[edit]
  • "However, Lucier admits a long thin wire is only used to impress, a short thin wire would have worked as well if not better, and he discovered that the best way to produce variation in the sonic phenomena was to pick a setting and leave the setup alone."

This summary of lucier's account of the development of the wire doesn't seem accurate. his story about it doesn't say that the length of it was just used to impress, he only says that a short wire would have been just as good to demonstrate the physical fact of how the system works, but not that it would have no impact on the piece other than make it look impressive. He goes on to state that the length of the wire in different installations of it changed the sound greatly and even says the longest installation of it sounded the best.

  • "Lucier originally used three- to four-foot-long wires, but gradually lengthened them over the course of several performances. 'A short length of wire,' said the composer, 'would look like a laboratory experiment, but if you thought of it as a sound sculpture, your imagination could take that wire down the length of the room.'" http://www.allmusic.com/album/music-on-a-short-thin-wire-r547308

Perhaps the summary refers to the above description from AllMusic. Hyacinth (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "We extended a short metal wire across a laboratory table and placed an electromagnet over one end of it. An audio oscillator drove the wire.... caused the wire to vibrate in ways observable to the naked eye. I ... started imagining what a very long monochord-one which could be installed on a concert stage or occupy a gallery space-would sound like. I knew it would sound amazing." http://www.lovely.com/albumnotes/notes1011.html

The conclusion that a short wire would work as well if not better seems contradicted by the above quote. Hyacinth (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]