Talk:Musique concrète

Musique concrète

The articles could indeed be merged, but the term "musique concrète" must be prefered to tape music. Because the genre was virtually established by Pierre Schaeffer, who discussed it philosophically at length. Briefly, the musique concrète is used to contrast it from the "abstract music" as coined by Heinrich Schenker!!!

Subjective statements

I would be going to change various statements such as in the section:

Recently, the growing popularity in all forms of electronica has led to a re-birth of Musique concrète. Artists such as Squarepusher, Christian Fennesz, Francisco Lopez, Ernesto Rodrigues and Scanner use many Concrète techniques in their music while often being classified under more common electronica genres such as IDM or downtempo. Music magazines such as The Wire regularly feature articles and reviews of musique concrète.

becouse this is very unbalanced, the author seems to simply ignore the fact that artists such as Brian Wilson-Beach Boys, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Cluster, Can and Einstürzende Neubauten made an extensive and prominent use of musique concrete techniques both as additional effects added to more "usual" songs and as pure experimental or avant-garde artistic form in a number of works, with regard to Pink Floyd, for example, here only "Bike" is mentioned. Dealing with more recent artists is appropriate only after a huge description of the works of oldest musicians.--Doktor Who 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret I do not have time for now, I am very busy with other stuff, it would be nice if someone would consider my suggestion and try to fix the article. For any question, if I can, I will be happy to reply here or at my talk page.--Doktor Who 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Wright was more of a genius than people give him credit for. Before it was guitar driven, Pink Floyd relied heavily on the keys he played and later on he was Instrumental in creating the sounds that you are most familiar with on Darkside of the Moon in 1972 using sequencing techniques and samples. The guy was good on piano, anything with keys and programming the earlier synths and embracing technological advances in that world and used them incredibly well!!! R.I.P 70.30.32.127 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Electroacoustics

The term "electroacoustics" points to Musique concrète. However, the link http://www.massa.com/fundamentals.htm defines the term otherwise. Electroacousics is the study of acoustic transducers like microphones and loudspeakers. This should be corrected for.

Raymond Scott

Should Raymond Scott be included here? I'm not a music historian but I enjoy Raymond Scott's work and know he used to market his company, Manhattan Research Inc, as a facility for composing electronic music and musique concrète. Discordian 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Short article.

My writing skills are not up to par at the moment, but I feel that there is a lot more that can be said about this subject. Personally, I feel that Musique Concrète is one of the most overlooked movements in the history of western music. I agree with the article's assumption that many modern electronic artists have been influenced in one way or another by this movement, and also that other "classic rock" artists such as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Can, and even more diverse artists such as Salvador Dali, John Cage, and even, dare I say it, the very concept of music video itself, owe their very existence to these pioneers. In short, I'm happy this article exists, but it could be much more informative. 69.92.205.158 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zappa's 'instrument'

Mike Keneally (http://www.keneally.com/poodlebites.html#notes) says that '118---"Apostolic Vlorch Injector" should be "Blorch"'.

Zappa himself, in an interview in February 1987 for 'Music Technology' magazine, said, "Oh, 'The Chrome-plated Megaphone of Destiny'? The percussive-type noises, the thing that sounds like little squirts and explosions, was done by using a box that we built at a studio called the Apostolic Vlorch Injector."

Mike seems to think he knows more about Zappa than Zappa himself did. Me, I go with 'the horse's mouth'. Dwoogie (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Controvery

This section is written in such a way that it appears to be NPOV, though I don't know much about musique concrète. If it's actually some sort of consensus opinion, it should have citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinBlank (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Revolution 9

I know that it's not exactly representative of the genre but I think its safe to say that, among those who have no idea what musique concréte is, "[Revolution 9]" by [the Beatles] might be the best known example of the genre. If nothing else, people who have never heard of the artists or works on this page would be able to have at least a decent understanding of what musique concréte is. Therefore I'm going to add it to the introduction of the article. If anyone has any objection to it, please respond on here rather than just deleting the statement. Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think it would be good to include this as an example of how musique concrete has influenced popular music, but first we need a section that deals with that very issue. Until the assertion made in the lede can be placed in context, using a specific sub-section, it should not be included. Also, have you any cites to support the "One of the most famous examples of musique concrète is "Revolution 9" by the Beatlesthis" claim? The article on Revolution 9 does not provide any references, else something there might have been used as support. Maybe it's better to wait until a section dealing with the influences of musique concrete on popular music has been included? Semitransgenic (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would also be a good spot for references to Zappa and the Tom Constanten era Grateful Dead.

Section was removed on 8 July 2008 by User:Semitransgenic, on grounds that it "consists entierly of WP:OR". If you would like to reinstate such a section, be sure to provide reliable references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By no means should the Grateful Dead be mentioned here. They used to improvise and perform what sounded like musique concrète on stage during 'Dark Star' and other songs, but this needs to be kept a secret, because they failed to articulate the French philosophical musings to justify it. Or, as an intellectual friend of mine once said when I played 'Anthem of the Sun' for him, "Why haven't I heard this before?' To explain, if I may, musique concrète is a misnomer; it is not a kind of music but the techniques for making compositional sound. The article very clearly defines it in terms of electroacoustic music, "music resulting from the manipulation of recorded or generated sound, emanating from loudspeakers, without an obvious human performer" and acousmatic sound, "sound is sound one hears without seeing an originating cause." Although a few Grateful Dead studio albums may have a minute of two of musique concrète passages, musique concrète, strictly speaking, CANNOT be performed live. (The article speaks of a 'live' performance, the premiere of Pierre Schaeffer's Symphonie pour un homme seul in 1951, which involved moving the sounds from one speaker to another, which is so simple as to hardly be worthy of mention, and does not change that the sounds themselves were all prerecorded.) Naturally, philosophers fail to make this distinction (call it original research, it's what I do best) and speak of musique concrète as if it were a genre of music, which merely contributes to the proliferation of genres without being useful. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony becomes musique concrète when played through a tape loop. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

I thoroughly agree that Revolution 9 should be touched upon here; however I agree that absent reliable sources to refer to or quote, it must remain sorely absent. Huw Powell (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct technical description of chromatic phonogene

I could see from the photographs, both here and elsewhere on the internet, and from my own personal professional experience with tape recorders both analogue and digital, both audio and video, and both as an operator of and a service technician, that the chromatic phonogene workings description was plainly incorrect. I have verified my educated suspicion from a french website, and will post a link to it as a source of reference soon, if that's okay. Also, I went ahead and modified the article without mentioning anything here, as I'm relatively new to Wiki and didn't know that articles could have their own talk pages in addition to user's talk pages. I'm also in the process of changing my username, so until then, try not to be too offended!!! I know what you people can be like!! I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That may well be so, but just to clarify, the description you are referring to was taken almost verbatim from an article written by GRM's director Daniel Terrugi, and published in the Cambridge University Press Journal Organised Sound. Relative to the details you have provided, it may simply have been an oversimplification for the sake of brevity, rather than being totally incorrect. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted for the time being, your version, whether right or not, was a bit of a muddle, the Teruggi summary reads clearly and seems to describe the gist of the machines operation without undue detail. If you are going to add material to this please ensure that you have a verifiable source for the information so that disputes regarding WP:OR etc. can be avoided ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As a past employee of a motion picture and TV equipment supply company, I can safely say that the directors of that company, like GRM, had a far less thorough understanding of the equipment under their aegis than the engineers. The GRM director's description was the muddle, and would serve only to confuse those trying to understand it, while simultaneously devaluing the GRM director himself and Wikipedia to boot, to those who can plainly see it's wrong. Brevity? -If you want me to put my description in the same amount of words I will!! But it will differ substantially as it will be a correct description...

Meanwhile here's the article I confirmed my suspicion with. It's titled "L’apport des techniques d’enregistrement dans la fabrication de matieres et de formes musicales nouvelles.

Applications à la musique concrète. Jacques Poullin"

(Jacques Poullin is the Schaeffer's engineer who's referred to in the article in the first sentence under 'Groupe de Recherche de Musique Concrète', and whose understanding of the equipment I hold in higher esteem). The article is a Babelfish translation, but it is still perfectly clear as to the workings of the instrument:

H. Phonogene realization - the phonogene with keyboard (Schaeffer patent, Tolana manufacturer) comprises primarily a system of drive at twelve speeds different from a closed loop of magnetophonic band composed of twelve rollers suitable diameters, the keyboard allowing the clutch of the band on such or such of them. The report/ratio twelve speeds corresponds to the report/ratio of the frequencies of the moderate chromatic range of Bach. The engine of two-speed drive doubles the possibilities of immediate transposition which cover two octaves thus. In fact, there are no mechanical limits with the transposition: by associating an ordinary tape recorder to carry out intermediate copies, it is possible to record on a loop ravelling at the speed lower (or higher) of the phenomena resulting from a loop, read with high speed (or lower), the new recorded loop could thus be transposed of two new octaves in the direction chosen, and so on. The electrical circuits of reading and recording do not differ from those of a standard tape recorder; the apparatus thus comprises an amplifier, an erase head (removable), a head which, by commutation, on the amplifier, is used alternatively with the reading and the recording. The band being beforehand unobtrusive using the removable erase head, the operation of recording makes it possible to insulate at the time wanted by the operator any sound fragment beforehand chosen and suitably located by him. This fragment can be immediately read at 24 different speeds thus modifying its rate/rhythm, its duration and its stamp. By an accessory of pulleys, the band can be caused to a sufficient length to contain the fragments maximum length used in handling.

Here is the webpage link this text is from:

http://www.ars-sonora.org/html/numeros/numero09/09f.htm

You see? The main problem I have with the original article is the number of magnetic tape heads. It states there are twelve, when you can see from the photograph, and read from Poullins text, that there is one. This is a key fundamental difference and as Teruggi is a fairly recent director (1997-?), I put it to you that he has just glanced at the photo without understanding it, and without actually having played a real chromatic photogene either, has guessed incorrectly as to its workings... Or maybe he has played an old one, and maybe being an untechnically minded person just didn't know or couldn't remember how it worked, which would be astounding considering the workings are out in the open in front of the player!! (As seen in the photographs!!!!!!) I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant the wording was muddled, not that it was necessarily incorrect. I'm looking at a different higher definition photo taken at a different angle and yes it seems very clear that there is only one play head. This is quite an error. You should write to the journal and highlight this observation if you have time because it is quite a mistake. Can you summarize this and make it as concise as possible so as to provide a correct overview of it's workings? Semitransgenic (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to right wrongs here and with the journal. But I'll have to do that a little later on, as I have some other work to do now.

As far as my contribution would go, it would be good to encompass more of Poullin's description and not less. It may be better to explain the expressive power (for the time) through the features of the instrument more comprehensively rather than a précis of it which would fall short and be less 'encyclopedic' I think. I'll come up with something, and you can give it a read later and let me know what you think perhaps. I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think directly referencing Poullin's work is a good idea, but we may run in to WP:NONENG objections at some point, just so you are aware, personally I don't see a problem. I will also look for another description, published in English, it would be good to have it as a reference if one is out there. In terms of the level of detail, at this stage it might be best to keep the weighting proportional. Additional detail could be provided as a footnote. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did search pretty hard (online, anyway) for an English language reference to the piece, but had to resort to the French language article from Poullin himself that I mentioned, as all the other English web based sources I found include the same key description error. In fact I found some descriptions that seemed 'cut and pasted' identically from the Wikipedia article, and if you say the article originally came from the Journal of Organised Sound, who holds the original copyright for the text anyway? I was going to ask you about copyright issues, especially if I used 'a substantial amount' of the source material from the Poullin article but in my own words, (which I'm not going to do now though, so as to keep the descriptions evenly weighted) but just out of interest...

Also, I'm not sure how to set up a footnote in the article page. I could experiment with the article edit facilities, but it could be helpful if you could place a blank footnote in for me to add text to perhaps... I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, for footnotes click the last icon on the left above the text edit window, and place the text between the ref indicators. Also, if you click editing help you get this which has most of what you need to know. Copyright is an issue, it's dealt with here WP:COPYVIO, a summary in your own words is best. Parts of the article currently need some minor adjustments to address this issue, haven't had a chance to deal with it yet. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

there are number of English sources that deal with the phonogene, but not sure what level of detail, have some other sources here that I will check, but for your own interest see phonogene on google book search and you will get an idea, the Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers form 1956 looks like it could be very useful in this context, know anyone who might have that ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Semitransgenic. I had my name changed from 'I wouldn't have to do this....etc' to Caspar, and at some point in the next couple of days I shall attempt to tidy up the chromatic phonogene description. Just so you know. I may also modify my signatures for the above discussion to my new username so we all know I'm the same person!

Incidentally, I did have a look around some of the publications on the books.google link you suggested (great tip, that google book search facility. I shall be using it elsewhere too!). I couldn't find an exact description as clear as Poullin's, so I think the Poullin text will have to suffice as a source of reference, for the meantime. It does state in WP:NONENG to use a footnote (as you mention) if the source is non-English and if availability of an English-language source of equal quality is unobtainable, so I guess that's what will have to happen. Caspar (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Semitransgenic. I've finally got (since last year) some time to update that pesky incorrect chromatic phonogene description. The update is snappier than my first effort, while being just as descriptive. It also embodies more of the original text, while maintaining the balance with the other instrument descriptions. I'm going to add a reference to Poullin's description that's elsewhere on the web, and as it's the only correct description, any WP:NONENG objections should be withheld, as we suspect. Caspar (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I have a copy of the NRCC English translation of Poullin's article - Yann Geslin supplied me with it about a decade ago. I'd be happy to scan it and send you a copy. (Poullin, J. (1957) The application of recording techniques to the production of new musical materials and forms. Applications to ‘Musique Concrete’ National Research Council of Canada Technical Translation TT-646, Translated from the original in L’Onde Électrique 34 (324): 282-291, 1954 by D.A. Sinclair, Ottawa 1957) DGMatic (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:L430xH465 jpg Schaeffer big-2eb70.jpg

The image File:L430xH465 jpg Schaeffer big-2eb70.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Just to try and head off the kind of situation that has arisen over on the electroacoustic music (or worse still List of noise musicians) page can I suggest we hammer out some specific criteria for the list of notable composers. From my reading of the literature, it seems to me that we are dealing with a tradition, one dominated initially by a group of French composers who single handedly established the theory and practice of musique concrete, that's what makes them notable, and most of these individuals have a strong body of work that explores the aesthetic, while working within its theoretical framework. There are then various other composers who have dabbled in tape manipulation, as part of a wider compositional practice. A small number of the second group produced maybe one or two works for which wider attention was received, but I would argue that this does not make them notable as "musique concrete" composers. To complicate this further, we have also the later (from the mid 70s) French & French Canadian practice of musique concrete, otherwise known as "acousmatic composition", so do we then include acousmatic composers here also? there are now lots of them, but are they all notable? I feel if we do start including any individual who has dabbled with acousmatics (in its widest sense), it will most certainly turn into the kind of list of composers we have at EA music, and I don't think this is the best way forward. Measles (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is well placed, as lists of this kind have frequently gotten out of hand in the past. There is of course the List of acousmatic-music composers which as far as I can tell is completely indiscriminate. If a link to this list were to be placed by this section, it might help to redirect the addition of less notable names.

As to the question of criteria, I think you are proposing three distinct things here: (1) is the composer in question notable, and in particular for works of musique concrète, (2) should we regard a composer as non-notable in this area if his output is not primarily devoted to it, and (3) how strictly can we define musique concrète itself? The first question I think is much easier to answer than the second and third, and I have some problems with what you may be only unintentionally implying here. First, you seem to be suggesting that nationality should be a criterion, and I cannot see why French or French Canadians should have an exclusive claim on what is, after all, a technique. Certainly musique concrète was first developed in France, and certainly a "tradition" evolved from it. However, I don't believe we should be confusing that "tradition" with the technique itself, and it did not take long for both the technique and the tradition to attract practitioners from other countries. As to the question of whether a composer's output is exclusively or predominantly taken up with musique concrète, I strongly disagree that this should be a criterion. Some composers are notable for only one or two out of hundreds of works, while others are notable precisely because of the range of different genres and techniques they have embraced with success. Beethoven, for example, composed only one opera, but Fidelio is surely regarded universally as a notable opera. If a composer such as, for example, Henri Pousseur, has been acclaimed for even one towering masterpiece that clearly falls within this category (and Pousseur has had several such successes), then I think he is entitled to be regarded as notable in the field. (Peripherally, it should be noted that Pousseur was technically Belgian, not French.)

The really tricky issue has to do with the third question, however. You have (I think inaccurately) equated "acousmatic music" with musique concrète. Although this term was originally offered by Pierre Schaeffer as an alternative for the expression musique concrète, it has come to mean something much more general: any music, generally produced in a recording studio, that is intended to be played back to an audience over loudspeakers (literally meaning music where the audience cannot see actions generating the sounds). The mixture of what is strictly speaking musique concrète with the originally equally strictly defined "electronic music", as well as with computer-generated music had begun already in the mid-1950s, and the term "acousmatic music" has embraced this mixture now since at least the late 1960s. Here I might argue for a stricter interpretation of what constitutes musique concrète.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree re:acousmatic having come to define fixed mixed media works. But many view acousmatic music as the contemporary equivalent of musique concrete; manipulation techniques using analog technology have simply been replaced by digital counterparts but the aesthetic remains pretty much the same. I wasn't suggesting that French/Canadians should have an exclusive claim. The predominance of said nationalities in the field stems from the fact that the theoretical underpinnings of the aesthetic were written in French (that and the generous arts and humanities funding available in both countries). The take up in the UK was slow, even slower in the US (interest in the States appears to be growing more recently), becasue of the language barrier. Outside of France, composers who wanted to work seriously in musique concrete, would have made efforts to penetrate Schaeffers writings, and would have incorporated his ideas into their compositional practice. Maybe this is some form of criteria? So essentially what we end up doing is drawing a distinction between a genre descriptor, and a term that is used to describe a compositional method; one that employs Schaefferian theory in its execution. Maybe we should just limit the article to coverage of the primary era associated with the development and practice of the aesthetic, then have a short section that deals with the acousmatic concept and try and detail how the scene has matured since 1975 (arbitrary figure). Maybe the fall of GRM and the rise of IRCAM could mark the official end of the golden era of musique concrete? There are claims that Boulez basically stole Schaeffers research agenda at GRM and used it as the basis of his IRCAM manifesto, I have a source somewhere for this. Measles (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a ticklish business, and I'm not so sure it will be possible to draw the kind of line you suggest. When objecting to French exclusivity I was not thinking primarily about the United States but, now that you mention it, there was quite a lot of activity in New York in the late 1940s at just about the same time that Schaeffer was beginning his work in Paris. John Cage was one of the leading figures in this school (in fact, I believe his first work was already accomplished in 1937) and, far from there being a language barrier, in his case it was more likely a conduit, since he spoke French very fluently. The work of Vladimir Ussachevsky and Otto Luening at Columbia University doubtless owed a lot to Schaeffer, and Luening, at least, also had excellent French. I don't know about Ussachevsky's abilities in that language, nor of Louis and Bebe Barron's. The question of a genre (as opposed to a technique) is an interesting one. Certainly Schaeffer's immediate circle adhered to a fairly closely circumscribed aesthetic, at least in the early days, which may be one reason that composers like Boulez, Barraqué, and Messiaen so quickly abandoned musique concrète after briefly dabbling with it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the alternate history thing, as happened with the reconfiguring of the Eurocentric history of modern music to account for American activity, but I don't think it's as clear cut in this case. I'm not sure it's accurate to call Cages Imaginary Landscapes #1 musique concrete. Joel Chadabe suggests that Schaeffer "followed Cages lead" but if you look at a paper by John Dack it's clear Schaeffer was inspired by radiophonic art, and was not taking Cages lead at all.

It seems most likely that the early experiments developed in parallel, but by the early 50s channels were open between the US and France, Luening and Ussachevsky's music was presented in Paris in 53, so I think there must have been an exchange of knowledge around this time. Cage and Tudor launched the Project for Music for Magnetic Tape in New York in 1951, which involved the Barron's, but it was Schaeffer who set about codifying a theoretically based method of composing musique concrete. It looks like the continued development and refinement of musique concrete happened primarily in France and Canada, while in the same period attention in America shifted to live electronics and computer music.

When I said above that interest in the States appears to have grown more recently what I meant was interest in acousmatic music and diffusion as a performance practice, because for years a lot of American music faculties simply were not dealing with musique concrete (tape music) as a serious music practice. For example, Harvard, in an effort to rejuvenate it's electronic music studio, hired Hans Tutschku, and the first thing he did was purchase a bunch of loudspeakers, to create the Hydra speaker orchestra. Similarly, At CEMI in the University of North Texas, they've gone all out buying loudspeakers for both diffusion and multichannel purposes. They also built a multi speaker facility at Stanford in the last few years, so i think the trend will continue.

Basically, what I'm saying is, that it has taken a long time for the Americans to take musique concrete/acousmatic music seriously, and now that it has gained respectability, there is more interest than ever, especially amongst younger composers who see the instrumental domain as prohibitively competitive (when it comes to getting works performed). But, having said all of this, it was France and Canada that kept the flame lit, so to speak, so it is only natural that the majority of notable composers are from those two countries; and it was also in those places that the tradition took hold.

In Dhomont, F. (1996), "Is there a Quebec sound", Organised Sound, 1(1), Cambridge University Press, there is a good overview (with some laughably condescending remarks about American efforts) also a nice summary here, it's a very French perspective, so take a pinch of salt, and a more indepth look here Measles (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we must keep in mind that "history" is at root a French word, as is "chauvinism" ;-) However, now you have raised another interesting question: to what extent is sound diffusion a specific property of musique concrète, as opposed to the broader category of acousmatic music? Certainly sound diffusion (or "sound projection", to use Stockhausen's term) is a technique principally associated with acousmatic spatial music (I don't think we usually regard the antiphonal effects of Renaissance/Baroque polychoral techniques or the more sophisticated developments of this concept by the likes of Henry Brant in quite the same way as when the sounds come from loudspeakers). But it is also true that electronic and computer music independent of the concrète tradition has long been concerned with spatiality, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

Ridernyc, using the Friendly" robot, added two tags to this article, one calling for more inline references, the other claiming Original Research. I have deleted the demand for further inline references on grounds that the article is already groaning under the strain of them—any more and there would be grounds for complaint that the article is over-referenced. I have left the "original research" tag in place for the time being, in the hopes that Ridernyc will explain just which claims might fall under this category (since there are one or two sentences that do not currently carry an inline reference). Since this was a bot-driven addition, I suspect mechanical error, and will delete the OR tag as well, unless justification is given within a reasonable time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not bot driven and the article pretty clearly needs inline citations. Restoring tag. If you wold like I could go through and add tons of citation needed tags but I prefer one large tag rather then dozens of small tags. Ridernyc (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I count twenty-one inline citations in this article, so I think marking specific places would be helpful, yes. I see three paragraphs near the end that appear to be uncited. Are these the ones you mean, or are you overlooking the fact that this article uses parenthetical referencing instead of footnotes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From the technology section down seems to be lacking citations for the most part. Other parts of it look like they could use improvement. I'd love to give you more feedback right now, but I'm currently heavily involved in today's BLP nightmare. I'll try to get it tagged for you within the next week. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the part you mean. This was the section to which I referred. Would it not make better sense to tag those sections, rather than the whole article? It is my understanding that a "nofootnotes" or "unreferenced" tag automatically places an article on the List of unreferenced articles or some such, for which reason an under-referenced article is more properly tagged with "refimprove". In any case, during the time you are occupied putting out fires elsewhere, I will see what I can do to track down sources for those unreferenced paragraphs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also work on the getting the parenthetical references changed to footnotes. I think with a bit more referencing, proper formatting, and some other tweaks we can get this articles status raised. Ridernyc (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing is preferable to footnotes, which clutter up the article needlessly, especially when there are more than just a few references. Although not in the majority, this style is accepted by the Wikipedia guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations, and is favoured especially in articles on 20th-century and contemporary music subjects (e.g., Tonality, Atonality, Serialism, Aleatoric music, Definition of music, Symphony, Luigi Nono, Milton Babbitt, Arnold Schoenberg, Béla Bartók, York Höller). Further, Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage changing established reference formats, unless a good reason for doing so can be found, and editorial consensus be reached: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style" (How to present citations).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

things may have changed but last time I checked in order to get an article to goo or featured status you needed to follow some pretty stict guidelines for citations. 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely true, but adhering to just one of the five or so recommended types of citation formats is not one of them. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one Good Article that uses parenthetical referencing, and that is Karlheinz Stockhausen, but I'm sure there are others. The Featured article criterion 2(c) sets forth the requirements for citations, with are: "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no original research in this article. The majority of the uncited material was taken (by me) from articles appearing in the the journal 'Organised Sound'. Note also that much of this material currently contravenes WP:COPYVIO and needs to be rewritten to avoid this - something I meant to do but never got around to. I can provide the required sources, in PDF format, to anyone who wants to rectify this.

Regarding referencing, I would also prefer footnotes as I find the current presentation cluttered. I followed Jerome's parenthetical approach originally, to give it a go, it's less work, but this is clearly inferior to hypertext based referencing in my view Semitransgenic (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had sussed that the remaining material must have come from the articles in Organised Sound, and am planning a trip to the library this afternoon to find what material comes from which article. Any copyvio will, as you say, have to be dealt with expeditiously. As to the referncing format, surely you mis-spoke when saying that parenthetical referencing is more cluttered than hyperlinked footnotes. In any case, a mere personal preference (even if shared by several editors) is not sufficient justification under Wikipedia guidelines to make a change in format (see above), which is why I have never made any attempt to convert articles using the unsightly hyperlinked footnotes to the more elegant and efficient parenthetical intext format: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style" (How to present citations).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree footnotes look better and are way less cluttered then current format. Ridernyc (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal preferences are not relevant, however. This is not a popularity contest. If there are sound reasons for changing the reference format in this particular article, do please set them forth. Otherwise, such matters on the general level should be debated at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

if you email me I can forward the articles to you right away, save you the trip. I can live with the style issue, unless consensus determines otherwise. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! However, I have already obtained most of them, and have begun inserting the required references. So far, I have not found the probably copyvios you mentioned, but I have only searched four or five of the seven or so articles in question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now added quite a few reference citations, and rewritten a number of sentences that appeared to quote directly from Teruggi 2007. Are we now at the point where the banner claiming insufficient inline citations can be removed? Alternatively, I think we may be at the point where specific tags pointing out which claims are still lacking sources would be helpful.

On another matter, I am concerned about the copyright status of several of the splendid images illustrating the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radiophonic Workshop and the Mellotron

Should the BBC Radiophonic Workshop and/or the Mellotron be mentioned in the article? They seem relevant to me, but I'll cheerfully admit that I'm no expert on the subject. Quickos (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Battier 1997

Battier 1997 is cited 3 times in the article, but I could not find any books or articles written by Battier in 1997, could someone either add a reference to this or at least verify it.--Holyct (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks, corrected, should have been 2007. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

'shellac' players and recorders

While it is undoubtedly true that old disc record players of the 1940s could (and did) play commercial 78rpm discs pressed in shellac, that doesn't mean that (a) only shellac discs were in use or (more importantly) that (b) it was possible to record onto shellac directly -- apart from anything else it is of course a very hard and brittle resin. Radio station recording work of this early period would have included the use of disc-recording machines that cut a groove into some kind of lacquer-coated disc, very much as more modern LP mastering was performed, for subsequent playback with a lightweight pickup. I suggest that all mentions of shellac be removed (the material is anyway irrelevant in this article): it might be sufficient simply to substitute the word 'disc'.

Peteradamson (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. It may be that one or another of the sources mistakenly used the word "shellac", but since there are no direct quotations involved, I have made the appropriate changes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I just spotted this change now and have reverted. The source used for this content states shellac. Other sources also refer to shellac. Recordings made "through a microphone were engraved on shellac records, covered in wax." The shellac disc also had a metal base beneath it. For the purposes of historical accuracy shellac is preferable here, it makes it clear that this was prior to the introduction of vinyl. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is what the sources say, then your reversion of my edit is perfectly correct. I am old enough to remember shellac (pressed) disks, but not old enough ever to have made disk recordings in the described medium.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen the above and find it rather bemusing. The materials generally available for cutting disc-recordings have been: (1900-) solid wax (too soft to play back and suitable only for onward plating); (ca.1930) cellulose acetate on a suitable substrate -- hence the generic term 'acetate' -- (1934-) nitrocellulose lacquer on an aluminum (or sometimes glass) plate; these last two are strong enough to withstand lightweight pickups for instant playback, and were what was used for radio transcriptions etc before the use of magnetic tape. The lacquer cuts also eventually replaced solid wax for mastering discs to be plated and manufactured as pressings. Shellac was used for pressings, later replaced by vinyl (which incidentally was in occasional use for pressings years before the LP era). Thus it appears that printed sources are no more reliable than online sources: for an instant playback disc, the very idea of engraving on wax (too soft) covering a shellac base (unnecessary, brittle and expensive) with a metal backing is simply a muddle of the various different methods. I suppose we should be grateful that there's no mention of etching the metal (as used pre-1900 for instant playback discs). I would repeat that there's no point in including the term 'shellac' as it is irrelevant to the materials or technique actually used for such instant playback recordings; if the material used is somehow important (which it is probably not in this article) then it should be referred to as lacquer. I have heard back from an expert in the history of sound recording who comments that 'there is a current tendency to use "vinyl" when meaning a shellac record and "shellac" when meaning a direct cut.' So, as with 'acetate' for 'lacquer' I suppose that we may yet have to just put up with the spread of such un-historical and inaccurate usages... For further information see the wikipedia entry for [Acetate disc]. Peteradamson (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The modern era

(And in this case by "modern" I don't mean the nineteen fifties.)

This article seems to end where it begins, in France in the middle of the last century. Surely there is some way to note the outgrowths of musique concrete that have come later, starting with the obvious Revolution 9, but on to many artists of the current era. Outfits such as Negativland, and their ilk, perhaps. Also it either isn't mentioned, or I missed it, but surely there should some note of the Theater of the Absurd? I currently hear two shows each week on WUNH FM which can only be described as musique concrete ("collage music"), so the genre is certainly still alive. Huw Powell (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue stems from the fact that, after the mid-1950s, musique concrète became conceptually merged with the idea of "electronic music". For a few years at the beginning of the 1950s, these were sharply contrasted categories with competing centres in Paris and Cologne. This article's lede already softens this distinction by admitting electronically generated sounds to the definition if musique concrète, but time was when this was precisely the difference (not for Schaeffer and Henri, perhaps, but for the general public, exposed to the full blast of the polemics). The "obvious start" of the continuation (or, as I have characterized it, merger) is not Revolution 9 in 1968, but with one of the main influences on that Beatles track, Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge from twelve years earlier. It was at that point that Stockhausen, the leading light of pure "electronic music", threw in the towel and admitted that generating every sound electronically was not only very laborious, but wasn't producing results with sufficient internal animation, and so he returned to some of the concrète techniques he had learned in Paris from Schaeffer. Stockhausen's influence being what it was, there weren't many composers working in Europe who continued to hold to the idea of restricting themselves to what could be coaxed from a sine-wave generator and the like. Perhaps the situation was a little different in America, where the Columbia-Princeton Center and other institutions continued for a while to hold themselves aloof from the corruption of sounds recorded from the real world, and the invention of the analog synthesizer injected new life into the idea of sound-synthesis on a more affordable scale, but even there the mixture of techniques soon reached the point where there was no longer any meaningful difference. The only thing left to do was toss a coin and decide whether to call the combined result "musique concrète" or "electronic music", and the latter won the toss. (It isn't quite so simple as that, of course, but this is roughly what happened.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Halim El-Dabh's tape music

According to other articles Halim predated Schaeffer by 4 years. I have adjusted the article accordingly - it would be good to settle this matter properly with well researched references though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.230.183 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This could get very messy. I presume the four-year difference to which you refer means 1944 vs 1948. The latter is generally cited as the year in which Schaeffer coined the term "musique concrète".As far as I am aware, El-Dabh never did use the expression to describe his own work—at least, not until long after 1948. If on the other hand you are demanding precedence for the manipulation of prerecorded sounds, then it can be established that Schaeffer began doing this around 1941, when he co-founded the Club d'Essai (according to the New Grove biographical article by Francis Dhomont). Once again there is a "however": experiments with manipulation of recorded sound do not necessarily result in "compositions", and Schaeffer's catalogue of works does not acknowledge any titles before 1948. Yet a further "however": there are examples from the 1930s of experimental sound films in which the audio materials were manipulated in a manner very similar to musique concrète. Some of these can even be plausibly regarded as musical compositions. The issues are complex, so it will not only be necessary to find reliable sources, but also to decide what actually distinguishes musique concrète from other types of sound-technology products.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should get messy then ! Whether or not its called musique concrete - its definately experimental tape music - the date should at least be included in Halim section - which it currently isnt. Would also be interested to know - which specific films do you refer to ? Im guessing they didnt use tape (pre ww2 ploughsharing) but am still most curious ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.28.198 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, messy it is. Assuming that the tape medium itself is not an issue, the experimental "acoustic film" (without pictures) Wochenende (1930) by Walter Ruttmann is often cited as an early example of sound composition. Some of the work from the 1930s by Oskar Fischinger (who for a time was an assistant to Ruttmann) may also qualify. Ruttmann used the Tri-Ergon sound-on-film technology, first patented in 1919 but not commercially available until the mid-1920s, so it is possible that there are still earlier examples. On the other hand, if we are to insist on tape recording as a necessary criterion, at the time Schaeffer coined the expression musique concrète, he was not yet himself working with tape technology, but rather with discs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Musique concrète. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ina.fr/fresques/artsonores/parcours/0003_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716201357/http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf to http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304193910/http://www.parmegiani.fr/ to http://www.parmegiani.fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521074230/http://www.ina.fr/sites/ina/medias/upload/grm/lettre/programme_multiphonies_2009.pdf to http://www.ina.fr/sites/ina/medias/upload/grm/lettre/programme_multiphonies_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

La rivière endormie

It is probably me misreading (or maybe my lack of knowledge regarding a possible collaboration on the above piece), but am I wrong in understanding that the comment in the main article seems to suggest La rivière endormie (1954) was composed by Honnegar, when it was of course Darius Milhaud:

"In 1954 Varèse and Honegger visited [Groupe de Recherche de Musique Concrète] to work on the tape parts of Déserts and La rivière endormie (Palombini 1999).

Arthur Honneger died in 55 so I suppose he may have been involved somehow but I can find nothing to support this.

It could be my misunderstanding the grammar of the above sentence as well. Sorry to waste your time if I have!

--Invulgo (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you are correct, but the passage in question is actually a quotation from Palombini. I have placed quotation marks around the directly quoted material. Something needs to be done about the misattribution, which should be to Milhaud's Etude poétique, Op. 333, which uses that text by Claude Roy. It would be a fantastic coincidence, indeed, if Honegger had set the same text in the same year, and used the facilities of the GRM to produce it, not to mention the fact of his poor health at the time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

My new section deleted

Please explain (whoever it was) why my section of a fictional "psyops" use of CM was deleted? I was not insulting CM as "torture", merely stating factually its use in a fictional context (which presumably was based on good evidence, judging from the general historicity of the TV show in question). I imagine an afficionado of CM was insulted somehow, like perhaps a Metallica fan would be when told that their music has been used in such circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.200.25 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia, please read WP:RS before adding content, we need citations for such additions, probably best also to discuss why you think this mention is notable on the talk page. Acousmana (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus dictates that the proposal is not COMMONNAME. Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Musique concrète → Concrete music – Move from non-English name to English name; see also WP:COMMONNAME. Mast303 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – Britannica, Grove, Oxford Dictionary of Music call it 'musique concrète'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME [1]. WP:USEENGLISH tells us to follow usage of English reliable sources (as opposed to German sources, Indonesian sources, or whomever), not to use an uncommon calque just because the calque is composed of English words and the common name isn't. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Not the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed name is not commonly used. The existing name is exactly what everybody uses. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.