Re: [microsound] random thought

[sk-1 <sk-1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:39 PM 11/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I suppose I run a risk by saying 'music' (lacks aural ingredient)
>
>is aural ingredient necessary for music?
>
	It is very nice to be in the company of people who need not define every
term used for its relevance. Perhaps I am too used to the narrow minded
approach. I believe my whole notion of composition based on physical+mental
feel (vibratile pulses- could be electric, could be temperature shifts,
could be air pressure)- My claim was that music is an orchestrator of
'sensation'. The aural element is for this purpose, a strong
conductor/controller/conveyer; however, there are other ways to manipulate
the mind for reaction. As Taylor pointed out, the senses are stimulated in
different ways through visuals, scents and other stimulations. 

	I was concerned about the term, mostly because I am often misunderstood in
my ramblings... People often need constant clarification of concepts... The
term 'music' holds many meanings, yet people tend to confine it at times. I
should have figured this forum more likely to 'think out of the box'. Nice.

	Miau-Maiu: I especially liked the reference to breathing ("I inhale every
two measures")- I find it very intriguing to listen to the rhythm of a
person breathing. At the risk of sounding wishy washy... Slivers of a
person's soul can be read in the patterns of their breath. Shifts in their
mind-state can be detected in subtle changes under the low hypnotic blanket
of air expulsion... Heh. Now that I made it way more complicated than it
had to be! ;) Hopefully the point fought its way through the babble!

Goodnight,
Sarah
_________________________________

..avoid clutter.appreciate techno.