analytical vs continental philosophy & microsound

[Matt Laffey <mattlaffey6@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So here's something I've been wondering about:

Why is it that the more academically/theory inclined people involved with 
microsound music (in whatever way) tend to favor/employ a 
continental/post-structuralist/post-modernist framework/context (eg. 
Foucault, D&G, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Bhabha, Derrida, etc.) opposed to say 
a framework rooted in the analytical/contemporary philo. of 
mind/language/science/etc tradition (eg. Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Davidson, 
Strawson, Putnam, Fodor, etc.)?

My knee jerk reaction would be that continental/post-modern frameworks tend 
to consider culture and cultural artifacts (i.e. music) more so than 
analytical philosophy. But the analytical tradition (post-logical 
positivist)tends to deal with ontological/metaphysical questions (which 
really are just a hop, skip and jump away from music) in a much more 
rigorous and realist manner which would at least, on the surface, appear to 
be of some interest to those inclined towards Theory (neutral use of capital 
"t") and music.

So for those interested, what do you think?

matt laffey

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx