In 2003, I wrote a snarky post about how I needed more education because I had no idea what “acousmatic” meant and couldn’t find a short, coherent definition for it on the internet.
Tonight, we had a colloquium (but they aren’t called that in England) where one of my profs, Jonty, used the term “spectromorphology” and others made derisive comments about mp3s, youTube and kids today and their lack of love for teh hi-fi. I felt vaguely rebellious, as I spent my formative years writing stuff to sound good as mp3s. I made a comment later to another student about a generation gap. He scooted slightly away from me. Fine, you’re all very hi-fi.
And another student was joking about academia and how he wasn’t academic. (The hot thing in academia, at least in music departments, is to assert that your music is not academic. It might be the case that I’m just attracted to places that assert that. The anti-Columbia U. Because, let’s be honest, I couldn’t get into an overly-academic program. I mean, I don’t know how to do serialism. Or maybe I’m grasping at the same sort of anti-academic street cred that all the uni kids want these days. Whatever.) But, I pointed out, doesn’t the term “spectromorphology” sort of point to a certain academicism?
Anyway, this evening, I was searching my blog for something completely different and stumbled across the old post of acousmatic snark. It seemed timely, as I’m still unclear on the concept and it came up this evening. Jonty said something about it. . . …. Jonty, of that same post. One of my professors is the same guy . . . who, um, how did I get here? At least I’m getting the education that I need.
You kids get your mp3s off my lawn!
