Gonna use this to set the mood for date night this weekend.

Should be listened to at least one a day for he full effect. 

Whether you regard list as music or not, technically it isn't Electronic Music but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroacoustic_music" rel="nofollow - Electroacoustic Music  because the sounds are manipulated acoustic (natural) sounds rather than being solely based on electronically generated (synthetic) sounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po%C3%A8me_%C3%A9lectronique

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/154/varese.html

Your just wrong Poème électronique is music, your out personal definition is your opinion and thats all it is and does not stack up to any sort of critic..................

Every one is entitled to their view and as OP for this thread that is what I am also stating but to state something is not music a definitely a personal choice and not quantitative assessment of fact.

Most of the sounds are not made using electronic means (oscillators), only some are and those are predominately in the second section. Pure electronic music was not unknown in the 1950s but this isn't an example of it.

Now this is Electronic Music. Leon Theremin and his invention. 

Hmm...Wiki is no expert on all things but they consider it a piece of electronic music.........but to my poor ears and sense of music  only a few parts in it qualify as 'music' and most doesn't.

Initial it with loving care (Don't surround yourself) 

Some people can't catch the irony in their own words.

Some people have more well developed musical tastes than others who are satisfied with plan Jane music

Yup - and Wikipedia, the fount of all knowledge, also lists Edgard Varèse's Poème électronique under "Examples of notable electroacoustic works" on their Electroacoustic Music page I linked earlier.

This kind of experimental music comes in various flavours that can be crudely summed-up thusly:

Poème électronique is composed of found and synthetic sounds recorded on tape and manipulated, which makes it a kinda crossover so the Wikipedia author can call it Electronic music because some of the tones are generated using standard Philips test oscillators but that 'overlooks' the manipulated tape recordings of all the found sounds that feature on the piece. For me, to be called "Electronic Music" the generated sounds have to be wholly synthetic.

dr wu23 wrote: ......but to my poor ears and sense of music  only a few parts in it qualify as 'music' and most doesn't.

Music is many things just as Art is many things, but what separates it from random noise is contrived intent. Varèse's composed this piece by assembling sounds with deliberate intent so therefore it is music. You may not find it musical in the same way I don't find Jackson Pollack's paintings to be artistic, but both are Art.

I tend to differentiate between appreciating something and actually liking it. I can appreciate Stockhausen and his music without liking it, and I can make the same observation of Roine Stolt and Miles Davis. This is why I tend to avoid making negative judgemental criticism of any piece of music - however, even if I like something I'll often only say so if it adds something to the conversation or is in response to a specific question. 

To be regarded as Proto Electronic Prog then we have to view that in context of what Progressive Electronic music is and how that differs from all other forms of Electronic Music (including that composed by Cage, Riley, Ligetti and a whole raft of others such as Wendy Carlos and the all folks who worked at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop), and while this may not at first appear obvious, the key element there is the very close association with Progressive Rock, and here I would stress the Rock element of that, if it ain't Rock then it cannot be Prog Rock. Similar things happen in Jazz Rock/Fusion (some people forget the Fusion bit must include some Rock element to be regarded as Progressive Rock) and Avant-Prog (Avant Garde without the Rock element cannot seriously be considered as fitting Avant-Prog, it's just Avant Garde). For Poème électronique to be some kind of precursor to the Progressive Electronic subgenre then there has to be a rock association, as opposed to an experimental or electronic(ish) association otherwise Stravinsky and Bach would be regarded as Proto Prog (which they aren't and never can be).

If you want to look at the origins of what is considered "Progressive Electronic" on PA, you look at developments in rock music of the 1960s, not academic avant-garde stuff from earlier. First, you have the Pink Floyd-inspired space rock which included sound effects and trippy guitar/organ sounds. That was a huge influence on early Krautrock and Berlin School. Then, you had people like Carlos, etc. who were non-rock musicians working with synths; once people like the members of Tangerine Dream (who started out as a rock band) starting using synths, they used them in a different way. At first simple, cheaper synths were used for spacey sound effects; later Moogs were used for repetitive and rhythmic sequences. In the meantime, all those synth solos people like Emerson and Wakeman were doing had nothing to do with PE.

PE (as defined by PA) also has nothing to do with any experimental electronic music post-1970s (unless it is directly influenced by the '70s stuff).

I'm not sure I agree, much of Krautrock and PE seem to stem pretty directly from the academic experimentalists. For instance, I'd consider this track to precede a lot of spacey electronic acts, especially Cluster:

The first two Kraftwerk albums clearly drew from Stockhausen, among other artists. The opening of KlingKlang resembles some of the abrupt musique concrete of the 60's, and naturally Kraftwerk would be hugely influential electronic artists

So to be on this site everyone must listen to the same music - that seems to be what your are saying, don't think that is what this site is about.

My comment is a response to the previous comments, which I believe are in rather poor taste, I started this thread and expressed an opinion on Varese's work Poeme Electronic (Varese was the major influence to Zappa's work if you didn't know) and then get all the trolls coming out of the wood work stating that this is mot music, yeah so of course I going to react and I can tell you I'm significantly older the 30 - as alluded to by another poster. I thought this was a relatively free thinking site but this thread has shown un ugly nasty side to PA which I find repulsive. 

You have obviously not looked at my posts and the Source links that I posted to support my original post. 

You are obnoxious in the extreme and do not warrant a reply

I suspect you are responding to the wrong post as I can't see what you've written here has to do with what I posted but since you have, here goes. 

What I have posted, if it relates to "what people should listen to" at all, would be saying the diametric opposite. Note here that it was YOU who criticised the taste of others for not liking the music you like whereas the implication in my post is that if no one ever says whether they like something or not then no one can make that snap assessment of them and they can listen to whatever the hell they ruddy well like.

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: My comment is a response to the previous comments, which I believe are in rather poor taste, I started this thread and expressed an opinion on Varese's work Poeme Electronic (Varese was the major influence to Zappa's work if you didn't know) and then get all the trolls coming out of the wood work stating that this is mot music, yeah so of course I going to react and I can tell you I'm significantly older the 30 - as alluded to by another poster. I thought this was a relatively free thinking site but this thread has shown un ugly nasty side to PA which I find repulsive.

-------------
What?

My response regarding the 30 y/o age was in response to zravkapt and not to yourself  either "you're"or not "your".

Your definitions are fine but they are your definitions and nothing more............ you seem to quote Wiki when it suits you..............

I know, but your response quoted my post. Ergo, it was nothing to do with me. If you have an issue with Darryl then quote his post and take it up with him, not me.

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: Your definitions are fine but they are your definitions and nothing more............

I have defined nothing, my comments are opinions and discussion points and nothing more. People falsely presume that internet posts are statements of irrefutable defined fact when in reality they are nothing but opinion (albeit backed up with suitably chosen citations).

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: you seem to quote Wiki when it suits you..............

-------------
What?

So why do you quote Wiki at all.....

Actually, I didn't and rarely do. I merely linked to their Electroacoustic Music page for anyone who hadn't heard the term before since not everyone is knowledgeable on early experimental music and occasionally some presume that it's all "Electronic Music". The only other reference I made to Wikipedia was in response to Doug's post on the bottom of page 1, where again, I neither cited nor quoted Wiki but merely pointed out that it also listed Edgard Varèse's Poème électronique under "Examples of notable electroacoustic works".

Then, you can prove anything with bloody facts mate.

 

Come up with some reasons and qualifications of why  you think it's both proto and prog, and I'll be happy to talk further. If not, then this post will have failed to advance your claims.

Circular arguments are such fun, why is it not music as you state your is just an opinion without any supporting facts...... The responses received to this posts would seem to indicate a very closed mind set. Varese was in fact a major influence on many Prog rockers and in particular the use of sound collages popular in early proto prog by artists including Zappa, Chicago and even the Beatles among others.

https://billsmusicalbox.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/the-godfathers-of-american-prog-rock/

https://thebluze.com/2016/01/30/why-is-progressive-rock-so-controversial/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UIqkCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT277&lpg=PT277&dq=Varese++Prog+rockers&source=bl&ots=oD6_FrTkmV&sig=PowDYh5hj6iMdnQnEaRw_84uQJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6_urohvfQAhVIa7wKHfaTAYwQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=Varese%20%20Prog%20rockers&f=false

 

I never said that it was not music. Or that Varese was not universally influential. I said that you failed to provide opinions of, once again, why you consider this work to be prototypical electronic prog.

 

Now, carry on ignoring my request for opinions concerning same, and spin the wheel again.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_music

The mention of the Varese Déserts piece is also of interest.

We are not going to do your work for you here. Stating that Varèse was influential on some musicians (some of whom were Progressive Rock musicians) does not show that his work was Proto-Progressive Electronic music, influence alone is insufficient evidence that the piece in question, Poème électronique, is in any way related to Progressive Electronic music. Note here, and this has been stated several times in other similar discussions, that influence only applies to music that is related to Prog, it does not apply to music that was the precursor to Prog, which in this context has to be Progressive Electronic as we define it on this site for a thread that resides in the 'Proto-Prog and Prog Related Lounge'. Musicological discussions have to be precise to hold any validity. Steve, David and I may differ on what we define as "music" but we are in tacit agreement that Poème électronique falls short of the musical framework that would classify it specifically as a precursor to Progressive Electronic music.

Here, accusing people of having a closed mindset because they do not agree with you is a logical fallacy that fails to prove any of your implied assumptions or your stated conclusion. Being dismissive of the people arguing against you does not invalidate their arguments, it does not prove them to be wrong and it certainly does not demonstrate that you are in any way right.

The following is a dictionary definition of music:

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Archives-GRM/release/375844" rel="nofollow - Various ‎– Archives GRM

I like the other one's artwork better but this loooks like a must have as well and best of all they don't overlap. Another must have!

 

While I may reject experimental/avant-garde music as actually music (music concrete, etc.) on some emotional or viseral level, I do accept it as music on an intellectual level, with artistic criteria defining it as such. If we cannot come to a consensus as what defines music, I feel that all other related discussions are built on a shaky foundation.

That has been an argument since we were clubbing mammoths when we left our caves. That is that intellectual music cannot be "emotional." Personally i find it very emotional in a different way. IQ and EQ both have different levels of intelligence. Just because advanced calculus is foreign to some doesn't mean it's not valid. Same goes with music concrete or any other highly advanced form of sound relationships. By calling such music non-emotional is quite judgmental. Is an obscure language in remote Siberia not a language simply because someone doesn't understand it in North Dakota? I think not

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

All sounds have the ability to affect us emotionally given the appropriate context. We can go through life being totally unmoved by the sound pattern of a door with hinges that are badly in need of some oil being opened, yet even the most rational of us can be spooked by it under the right circumstances if our senses are suitably heightened. Conversely there are accepted forms and genres of music that affect some of us and not others. If we are receptive to a pattern of sound then we can be emotionally moved by it whether is defined as music or not.

The problem therein is without a frame of reference how can you tell good from bad? From a technical stand-point that's generally easy to gauge but that craftsmanship of production, while being a technical art that we can assign merit to, is not a metre of artistic quality. This is evident if you have ever seen any visual avant garde art - pieces that are deemed to be important and good often display pretty shoddy workmanship in construction and execution. Decrying abstract art as no better than that of a three year old in kindergarten is given further weight of argument when it actually looks like it was made by a three year old in kindergarten - from an artistic perspective the manual dexterity of the artist is overridden by the creativity of the artist. This leaves then an intellectual assessment (what has the artist achieved?), an emotional assessment (does this affect me?), and a historical assessment (did this affect/impact/influence others?). Both the intellectual and the emotional are valid but can either of them separate good from bad? Similarly, does an historical assessment say anything about the quality of a piece as Art?

However, all of that is immaterial.

In the realm of Progressive Rock music that is abstract, avant garde or electronic has to have a reference point that makes it recognisable as Avant Progressive and/or Progressive Electronic, and that common base-line is Progressive Rock, which is a musical subgenre that is defined by the full dictionary definition of music in that it contains melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre. Music that is too far abstracted from that "musical" definition, while being valid as examples of Avant Garde and/or Electronic/Eclectroacoustic music, lack that direct reference so cannot be contained within the subgenre. Therefore David's initial post:

...is 100% factually correct in this context regardless of how important the piece is or how many Prog musicians Varèse has influenced. It is not part of the Progressive Electronic canon in http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=33" rel="nofollow - our definition of that particular subgenre because its Musique concrète nature is devoid of the elements that define it as Progressive Rock (regardless of they are in specific terms, that it is "rock" has to be the starting point).

This of course is a completely different argument to the one that prevents Progressive Trance and Progressive House from being included in the Progressive Electronic subgenre, yet they are related in the sense that the are excluded because none of them have a musical reference back to Progressive Rock.

 

I contend that this piece is music as based on Varese's intention to present it as such. How much of it is actually electronic music, as I have come understand it technically, is my concern much more than if the piece is proto electronic prog.

I'm standing by the highlighted proviso where music in this instance as David used it is restricted to the narrower definition of "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre." because it has to be associated with Progressive Rock to be considered a precursor to Progressive Electronic.

SteveG wrote: How much of it is actually electronic music, as I have come understand it technically, is my concern much more than if the piece is proto electronic prog.

I've already voiced my thoughts on that: it's not wholly electronic music.

We've got a couple already:

   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46948" rel="nofollow - Electro-Acoustic Music

   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73926&PN=1" rel="nofollow - electroacoustic Music (electronic Music)

Happy holidays David to you and your family, and have a great New Year!  

Oh thanks Dean - a couple of four pagers too so I'll have a good read .