Re: [microsound] maths science and electronic music

[Peter Price <pprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 12, 2005, at 5:40 PM, W.C Schrimshaw wrote:
> bruce tovsky:
> > i agree with the first part, but not the second. i find that the idea 
> > of
> > "exposing the process" is a little like giving a lecture about what
> > your art "means." a dangerous activity.
>
> exposing the process doesn't have to mean that you are trying to 
> highlight
> or fix meaning as such, something that is constructed subjectively at 
> the
> point of reception (if your into foucault and barthes) and that you 
> have
> little control over as an artist, but rather that you are exposing more
> material for interpretation, i would say, a more heuristic 
> discourse....

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