Raise the Curtain! A Critical Perspective on the Idea of Post-Acousmatic

The aim of this abstract is to question the notions of ‘post-acousmatic’ and to suggest some perspectives on the relative debate. Although Adkins, Scott, and Tremblay (2016) attempted to systematise the meaning of the term, critical aspects still remain that in our view should be addressed. In our perspective, the concepts presented by Adkins, Scott, and Tremblay (2016) rely upon an unsolved element of ambiguity underlying the term ‘acousmatic’. This adjective can be applied to a phenomenon, a paradigm, a musical genre, a mode of listening, or a canon; each of the mentioned subjects involves a different nuance. Without trying to propose a univocal understanding of the term, two main interpretations can be addressed: on one side, the acousmatic phenomenon, which is inseparably linked with the unisensory, only-aural condition; on the other, the acousmatic canon, understood as a historically consolidated standardisation of technological practices and aesthetic conceptions about material articulation, syntaxes, form, and spatiality. Given this ambivalence, it becomes problematic to identify which subject of the acousmatic is to be overcome: is it the canon or the mode of presentation? Adkins, Scott, and Tremblay identify this overcoming either as an ‘influence, an augmentation, or a critique of it [the acousmatic thinking]’ (ibid.), consisting of ‘a polyphony of activities which imply a variety of aesthetic or practical relationships with the acousmatic paradigm but are not contained within it’ (ibid.). They argue that such a polyphony of activities is supposed to be formed by nodes of divergence from acousmatic music through different conceptions of time, pitch, modes of presentation, aesthetics, or form. However, some considerable musical divergences exist within the boundaries of what is described as acousmatic music: see for instance, the temporal dimensions of some works by Bayle himself during the 70s, Luc Ferrari’s use of analogue distortion (Emmerson, 2007, p. 77), or the use of rhythm by Latin-American composers (Blackburn, 2010). Consequently, it remains unclear how the questioning of each of these aspects may be seen as a form of continuity, augmentation, or critique in relation to the acousmatic canon. A further understanding of the historical consolidation of this canon, and the fact that several divergent aesthetics can be traced in what is defined as acousmatic music are relevant subjects of discussion to be clarified before defining nodes of divergence. Nonetheless, what undoubtedly underlies every connotation of ‘acousmatic music’ is the centrality of acousmatic listening both in the compositional process and in the reception from the audience. Following this direction, Emmerson (1998) suggested that ‘cross-arts work is ideally “post-acousmatic” in the sense of “taking account of and moving beyond” and not necessarily […] “anti-“‘. A similar perspective can be found in Cope and Howle (2018) where the authors explore the possibilities of ‘electroacoustic movie-making’ (ibid.). The authors then pose the following question: ‘is there such a thing as post-acousmatic music?’ (ibid.). However, both Emmerson and Cope and Howle did not attempt to further investigate this concept. It seems no connection has been traced between these different standpoints. Our intention is to further research on the concept of post-acousmatic, critically examining existing perspectives. In doing this, we suggest that the post- acousmatic should describe practices in which composers rely on modes of presentations literally breaking the acousmatic condition. In other words, this term should designate contexts in which practitioners present an evident intention to use a wider palette of perceptual approaches, while, at the same time, retaining some relevant connection with strategies and aesthetics clearly traceable to acousmatic music. Despite the fact that according to Emmerson (1998) and Smalley (2007), our perception-cognition relies on trans-modality even in a only-aural context, considerable differences can be traced in the intentions of the composers who consciously decide to make use of the relationships between different layers of perception. Conversely, those artists who intentionally decide to make use of the only-aural media, will generally show different behaviours in terms of compositional strategies and structures. Hence, a post-acousmatic paradigm can be framed as the idea of raising the acousmatic curtain, considerably relating to the different aesthetics and strategies within the acousmatic tradition. Even if, in a strict literal interpretation of this definition, one might include the practice of mixed-media works (instruments and electronics), the general perspective of Adkins et al. suggests that it makes sense to refer to post-acousmatic practices when dealing with nodes of aesthetics that are in a consequential relation with the acousmatic tradition, according to the aforementioned influence, critique, or augmentation. Lastly, given the problematic approaches outlined in this paper, we would like to encourage a debate with the aim of rethinking and reframing what the term ‘acousmatic’ exactly designates, and which aesthetics are contained within its paradigm, in order to dissolve any ambiguity in defining what goes beyond it. Consequently, we would like to dissuade from the use of the word ‘post-acousmatic’ as an established historical label.