Re: [microsound] input + software = output

[ADSR@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/15/99 7:01:54 PM, m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< > >input + software = output....
> 
<<but to me the key was what I
decided to do with the "output." If it worked it was not simply because
the correct button was pushed...>>

I think this is important, and would especially apply to found sound/ chance 
pieces.
I think the majority of this "music" derives itself more from aesthetics of 
the art world than the conventions of the music world.  
Therefore the important part lies in what the artist does with the "output." 
Or how the artist presents it(e.g. Duchamps "Ready-mades").  Unfortunately, 
this doesn't seem to be accepted by the visual arts community on any regular 
basis,  why?   When was the last time "Art History" included the sound works 
of L. Russolo, Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Schwitters...etc?  It's generally 
overlooked, were these works any less revolutionary because they weren't 
visual?
The primary difference I see is that sound pieces lack the physical 
obect(trophy?) giving one obj