Re: [microsound] Meaning exists, its just microscopic meaning.

[MVFarley@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/6/02 2:20:00 PM, lipistal3@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< Maybe the meaning exists in microsound, its just microscopic meaning. >>

Scott,
You'll never upset anybody by asking a question.  People get more upset by 
blanket statements that are not thought out (you've obviously done a lot of 
thinking).  I think I follow what you're saying; I'm thinking that it's a bit 
of a maze and a dead-end to get too involved in the meaning of genre labels.  
For example, is "post-impressionism" a fair way of describing Gaugin? - not 
at all!  And what about "Impressionism" as a way of describing the work of 
Debussy and Ravel? - they would seriously protest I'm sure (both of them 
being more interested in Symbolism than Impressionism).  Terminology is more 
of an interest, and a convenience, to the historian than the artist.  I think 
these genre terms, although bogus, are OK, with the understanding that they 
are very loose - for example, Matmos is more microsound than John Lee Hooker. 
 With that kind of analogy, I think you're safe.  Otherwise, well...you do 
your best.  

michael

------------------------------