[no subject]

This isn't to say that art shouldn't focus on process, I just feel many
people are using an imprecise terminology to explain exactly what it is
they are trying to explore aesthetically in their works.

~David

David Powers
Faculty Assistant
DePaul University, School of Education
Department of Leadership in Education, Language, and Human Services
773-325-4806

>>> pprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 04/12/05 05:01PM >>>

In his "Semiology of Music," Nattiez proposes a semiology of music as 
the investigation of the "total musical fact."

He spells out a 3 part structure:

1) The "poietic process" or questions around the intention of the 
producer

2) The "trace" or the musical object in its material form (score, cd, 
mp3, air pressure)

3) The "esthetic process" or questions around the reception of the 
object by a listener.

any of these by itself could constitute an interesting "heuristic 
discourse," but remains only part of the picture.

In other words it is pointless to argue if "meaning" is "constructed" 
at the point of production or reception...the answer is of course both

and everywhere in between...


does this seem reasonable?


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


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