The first International Congress of Contemporary Music and Technologies (CIMTECO) covered subjects such as “Preservation and restitution of heritage”, “Pedagogy and Analysis”, “Current technologies”, “Interpretation and Perception” and “Sociology and Aesthetics”. The whole congress focused on the application of new electronic technologies in diverse aspects of musical activity.
This second congress aims to focus on what justifies the parameters of that “state of the question” that we looked into two years ago, and which is musical creation itself.
Although contemporary artists use new electronic technologies, technology in itself is nothing new. We find it in art from the cave of Altamira through to the Internet. As regards music, it is obvious that technique lies in the origin of manufacturing instruments to make sounds.
Music was always linked to technology. This relationship between the conditioning or dependence of the former regarding the latter always existed. Mozart and Brahms’s pianism are also different because the piano was technologically different.
Nevertheless, in recent decades a differential element has been introduced into this traditional relationship, and the fact is that compared to the traditional conception that technological means are simply a tool of expression, today the tools or the means in many cases become “the message”. This fundamental question is posed as a matter for reflection in this edition of the Congress.
Another no less important aspect is the evolution of the relationship between art and new technologies, a relationship that in the second half of the 20th century passed mainly through diverse stages. The sixties saw a desire for humanisation of new technologies, the seventies politicisation. The eighties resulted in seeing technologies rather as a spectacle with the transition from analogue to digital, whereas in the nineties the phenomenon of technification took place, the use of tools as an extension of the body itself. The current paradigm is socialisation, a dynamic and evolutionary relationship due to the participation of the artists themselves in technological development.
This socialisation leads us to the idea of democratisation and horizontality, present in the extensive and red-hot debate currently taking place about open and participative systems.
The role of technology was always that of transforming the means. The creator’s role was, of course, to make use of this technology, but also to fight bravely against its limitations: art is directed by restrictions. Alternatively, in this undertaking lies willingness for subversion, common in all creative processes.
Two paradoxes surround the composer who uses electronic technologies. Firstly, having to use tools that have not been designed for artistic production, and from this comes one of the reasons for subversion. This is nothing new. The tree did not evolve to become a xylophone. Or did it? Secondly, with musical composition being an open code, musicians depend on tools with a closed code. And from here it is not hard to see the effects. It concerns the concepts of personal identity and technological identity. In current day creation it is sometimes easier to distinguish whether a piece is made with software X or software Y than by composer A or B. It is true that open systems such as PD or the versatile MAX-MSP offer alternatives, but they still, if not determine, then in some way mark, the compositional process.
In the 20th century, technology grew meteorically in complexity but at the same time the interface was simplified, making its use more accessible. This distancing through concealment of the complexity undoubtedly makes the artist increasingly dependent: another inconvenience to add to the impossibility of subverting the closed codes. Moreover, without doubt, the seduction of the means can create the mirage that resulting from the application of specific software to the expression of a specific idea is valid, even though it has little or nothing to do with the original idea. In this sense, do I control the technology or does the technology control me?
There are undoubtedly more implications and we hope that this is made clear throughout this II Congress, which we hope arouses the same interest as the previous one. This outline serves as a starting point for a fertile debate about creation and technology, their alliances and their servitudes.
Honorary Presidents:
Andrés Lewin-Richter (Spain)
Composer, Secretary and Chief Executive of Phonos, Professor of History of Electro-acoustic Music at the Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona.
Juan Blanco (Cuba)
Composer, Founder of the "Laboratorio Nacional de Música Electroacústica de La Habana".
Scientific Committee:
Gerald Bennett (Switzerland / U.S.A.)
Composer, Director of the Institute for Computer Music and Sound Technology of the Zurich School of Music, Drama and Dance, Professor of Composition and Theory at the Zurich School of Music, Drama and Dance, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gabriel Brncic (Spain / Chile)
Composer, Artistic Director of Phonos, Professor at the Instituto Universitario del Audiovisual de la UPF, Professor at the Escuela Superior de Música de Cataluña (E.S.M.U.C.).
Agostino Di Scipio (Italy)
Composer and Investigator, Professor in Electronic Music at the Conservatory of Naples.
Max Mathews (U.S.A.)
Investigator, Doctor in Music by the University of Stanford.
Jean-Claude Risset (France)
Composer, Investigator at the Laboratory of Mechanics and Acoustics from the N.R.S. of Marseille.
Daniel Teruggi (France / Argentina)
Composer, Director of Investigation and Director of GRM, Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, France.
Advisory Committee:
José Manuel Berenguer (Spain)
Composer, Professor at the Raimon Llull University.
Ricardo Climent (Spain / United Kingdom)
Composer and lecturer specialised in music technology, at The School of Music and Drama, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Eva Lainsa (Spain)
Professor of Musical Didactics at the University of Seville
José Manuel López López
Composer, artistic Director of the National Auditory of Music, associate Professor at the Paris VIII University
María Eugenia Luc (Spain / Argentina)
Composer, Professor at the Universidad del País Vasco and the Centro Superior de Música MUSIKENE, Artistic Director of K.L.E.M.
Adolfo Núñez (Spain)
Composer, Director of the Laboratorio de Informática y Electrónica Musical (L.I.E.M.) del C.D.M.C.
Joâo Pedro Oliveira (Portugal)
Composer, Professor of Elecro-acoustic Music at the Unversity of Aveiro.
Nicola Sani (Italy)
Composer, Director of the Isabella Scelsi Foundation, Rome.
Edson Zampronha (Brazil)
Composer, Professor at the University of Sao Paulo.
Organizing Committee:
Eduardo Polonio
Eva Laínsa
Eduardo Fuentesal
Institutional Coordination:
Eva Laínsa
Public relations:
Abelardo Polonio
Secretary:
Purificación Gómez
Production:
Eduardo Fuentesal
Director:
Eduardo Polonio
|
