Re: [microsound] |-| Re: // techniques ]]

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tobias" <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>

> Music is a system of signification, and as
> such, analysis is inherently within the
> system as necessary difference between
> elements...

i believe i mentioned this, that the sonic experience of listening to a
piece of music contains all of the necessary analysis and "learning" that
one could get from the music through any number of external techniques.

> An "external" system is not necessary--

right.

> indeed what could even ever be external?

well, for example saying that this sound (which you can only hear) is
equivalent to this symbol (which you can only see).

> Things here could get more interesting
> if we consider how one tries to "analyse"
> in the Western sense a system of music-
> signification that through its differences
> has elements that seem to be un-notational--
> perhaps we can call this unspeakable, a gap, etc.
> The leap here is considering these non-notational
> aspects as inherent to the system we employ
> for the analysis also.

please help me understand.
are you saying that by creation of a system of music-signification we imply
that the system itself is without "unspeakable" elements?
it seems that by definition any system of signification would be "speakable"
... and rather that the fallacy is that this system leads one to believe that
the things it analyzes are also speakable.

-jonah