Re: analytical vs continental philosophy & microsound

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

matt

> 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.)?

i think it's just not as catchy.  ever heard of a record label called 
"tractatus logico philosophicus"?  there's your answer.

> 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.

i don't know, when i mention wittgenstein in public people usually look at 
me like i just ate a live hamster.  or maybe it's my mismatched pants & 
shirt?  i can't tell anymore.

the other problem is that an analytical reading would likely find much of 
this "microsound" music to be reducible to one single formula stretched out 
ad infinitium...  there is far more to be said in deleuzian terms, for 
sure!  but doesn't that offer a bit of a "quantic" reading whereby 
everything is true & false & meaning is mostly dependent on the reader?  as 
wittgenstein himself suggested (translating freely): "what you can't speak 
of, you mustn't speak of."  of course, if we discourse strictly of 
aesthetics, we may be better off with the "vague" & ambivalent (& _poetic_) 
statements & topics postmodernism offers...  after all, "there is an 
inexpressible", W again, no, not george.  (but then this inexpressible is 
"shown, not said."  post-structuralist philosopy is, to me, an 
illustration, not a depiction.  blah blah blah blah.)

a positivist/pragmatist discourse around microsound (& music in general) 
will most likely focus on the semiology & politics of music rather than its 
poetics.  the problem then is that dabbling with that will bring you 
neither fame nor fortune (nor girls), it's more likely to bring you 
political trouble as people "take it personally" that you analyse what 
they're really made of & what they really mean to their listeners.  in the 
end it's all supposed to be magic, & some seem to think that analysis 
disturbs or kills that magic...  try for yourself, you'll see...

of course, maybe i'm just being jaded, & there's really musicians making 
use of analytical philosophy in their work.  if so, here's a call for 
entries for an upcoming no type compilation called "language, truth & logic"...

have a nice day
~ david