Theatres of Sounds: the role of context in the presentation of electroacoustic music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do we work to create multichannel concerts? Given that we do, might we further consider the holistic experience of coming to a concert and how that impacts upon the audience’s engagement with the music? Why do electrocoustic music concerts take place in the locations that they do? Do we consider the relationship between content and form appropriately when planning and organising concert events? \n \nThis paper considers the philosophical approaches to multichannel concerts, questioning the underlying motives behind them and how these inform both the technological systems used and the context within which works are presented. Contrasting idealist and realist approaches (Emmerson 2007: 147), this paper seeks to identify the aesthetic goals which have driven current multichannel sound projection systems and questions if looking beyond the technologies of reproduction to consider the holistic experience of an electroaocustic concert might help to inform future practice. \n \nAt the 2013 symposium for Acoustic Ecology in Kent concerts were held inside the covered Number 3 slip at Chatham Historic Dockyard. This enormous wooden ‘hanger-like’ structure was built in Georgian times to allow naval vessels to be built under shelter. This expansive space provided a dramatic setting for our concert. Barry Truax presented a new composition “Earth and Steel” built from the metallic clangs of ship construction, recorded in the Vancouver shipyards of the 1970's. The remainder of the programme contained a diversity of works, both abstract and more mimetic in nature. But in this particular space where giant ships were built and repaired, can it be said that Truax's piece was even more resonant? Would the work have had the same effect in a sanitised concert hall? Was it somehow more significant in that slipway? How might performance of this same work, during inSonic2015 at the ZKM, compare?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".