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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org