A catalyst can be the temperature raising, it can also be the addition of an
element to the "brew", which changes the relationships between the original
elements. In chemistry or otherwise. I am perfectly aware that a reaction can
take place with out a catalyst. Maybe I should have made that clearer.
Regards,
Christophe
P.S. Why are we having this discussion on this list? Because you answered my
post on the list, and not off the list maybe. Whatever.....this list isn't as
sacrosanct as some would like to be, and thank the gods for that. Zeus and
Athena first of all. Libations for all, especially the merrier ones.
Steve Oliver wrote:
quoted 120 lines You haven't been informed very far...a catalyst doesn't make a reaction
> You haven't been informed very far...a catalyst doesn't make a reaction
> /possible/, in fact it's not ever necessary for a catalyst to be present for
> a reaction to take place at all. A catalyst speeds reactions up, much like
> increasing the temperature does. No offence intended, just correcting.
>
> And anyway, why in the hell are we having this discussion on this list
> anyway?
>
> Stevie.
>
> www.gram.org.uk
> www.rewind1000.co.uk
>
> > A "catalyst" as far as I am informed. Is that which makes some kind of
> > reaction/transformation possible, which at least in chemistry,
> > would not have
> > taken place w/o its presence. Kind of like the element which
> > brings the whole
> > ensemble to a more active state. A 'key' of sorts, opening up the
> > possibility
> > of emergent and synergistic behavior of the entire ensemble,
> > whatever it may
> > be. I think it is safe to say that this is also it's adopted vernacular
> > meaning. I think if we want to talk about catalysts, we should perhaps be
> > talking about the relationship between humans and machines after
> > the advent of
> > the transistor. In other words, music has been around for ever,
> > and "electronic
> > music" was thought up, at least in theory, far before any body
> > actually built
> > the machines capable of making it. The catalyst in this case is
> > the technology,
> > particularly the transistor, and the tremendous variety of new
> > music, culture,
> > and ideas which have proliferated since it's 'birth', the
> > "reaction". It is
> > obvious that people have been making all kinds of music using electronic
> > instruments, as Behn wrote, "all over the world", and I think it
> > is ludicrous
> > to point to any one place as it's point of origin. The whole issue is
> > problematic, and to reduce it's genealogy to a punctal and linear
> > progression
> > doesn't really do it justice. In fact even to think of the technology as
> > catalyst needs to be thought about, since technology and music
> > have existed for
> > a very long time. I would even venture the contention that they
> > both predate
> > the advent of what we now like to call 'homo sapiens'. Animals are quite
> > capable of artifice and engineering, and as we all know, making
> > music as well
> > (just open your window).
> > Here I will most likely be charged with anthropomorphising the
> > question, but I
> > would argue, that it is more of a case of geomorphisis, i.e. we
> > are animals,
> > and we make music just like all the other animals. What goes
> > through a little
> > birds mind as it alights my window sill and is bombarded by tweeky, high
> > pitched noise breaks? I can assure you that something does, even
> > if it isn't
> > the words "I hate that techno stuff, it's so soulless and unbirdlike".
> > Back to the point; I think that when people look for points of origins,
> > grounds, roots, they are more often than not motivated by some
> > force other than
> > trying to really understand the way whichever system they are looking at
> > actually 'becomes'. And 'becoming', in music or any where else involves
> > transverse and viroid cross-contamination. Do you need a "Big bang" or a
> > "Genesis" to make the world intelligible? Why not have
> > indeterminate open ended
> > origins - just as music has not yet been put through the
> > histrionic mill; no
> > one would argue that there is some kind of a final state in store for it.
> > The question which I think would be interesting to ask in this
> > case: "How is
> > what I am hearing part of something else? How and with what does it work?"
> > Regards,
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kurtis Behn wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm amused by this... just by reading a book or watching a
> > documentary
> > > > you can get the full history of electronic music... i must
> > admit both are
> > > > good resources for what has occurred in the history of
> > electronic music,
> > > > but detroit is NOT the catalyst for launching electronic music.
> > >
> > > > In fact, I'd tend to believe every section of this earth has
> > had a part in
> > > > launching electronic music... from the "techno pioneers" in
> > detroit to
> > > > the warehouse and garage djs in chicago and nyc to the d&b
> > creators in the
> > > > UK to john cage in champaign/urbana, IL basically every
> > section of earth
> > > > has had *some* part in making electronic music what it is today.
> > >
> > > While I tend to believe/agree with your second paragraph, I
> > don't think that
> > > that conflicts with the previous statement about detroit. I
> > think you're
> > > misunderstanding what was meant by catalyst, as in a jump start, not
> > > necessarily the source of all things electronic.
> > >
> > > k
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
> >
> >