[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] being 'political' in non-verbal music




On Jun 27, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Kassen wrote:

aleks vasic;

The use of music on the battle field had a finite set of purposes
throughout military history.  Communication, psychological
intimidation, morale booster.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say was that such factors also come in play in conventional music, in adition to the IMHO comparable element of impressing prospective mates and the afiliation with a certain social tribe. That last factor may also play a role in military use of sound and music. What I intended as the core of my message but which may have been pushed to the back by other points is that when those factors play a role in civilian music then the influence they have is taken to be caused by aestetic concerns while very comparable influences in military use are often asumed to be purely practical or admitted to signal the kind of thing we´d rather not admit to signalling in day to day life on a personal scale.

I think this muddies that way in which we evaluate the material,
particularly because it would mean multiple levels of comunication
within
music.

I can be pretty dense sometimes, also afflicted with tunnel vision here and there. Rereading your initial post as well as your explanation in this post, i do not know how i missed the gist of it. Sorry i am sick and i have a fever, maybe i should refrain from discourse that requires my brain to function past the thrid grade level!


To the best of my knowledge we are addressing the use of Music and
instruments on the battlefield as a form of communication , at least
thats what i responded too from a previous microsounders post.

Yes, I might have digressed from that a little, back to the comunicative sides of sounds and music. Sorry if that confused.

I jumped on your discussion of military comunication more to try to
use it
to illustrate sides of non-military music then to engage in a detailed
discussion on battlefield comunication, interesting as that may be
currently
with the word "friendly fire" becoming common.

Im sure some personal choice may go into it.  But in the spirit of the
Military tradition, functionality is king.  You can play all the
beatiful songs you want after your enemies are crushed under foot.  To
crush them you need an efficient way to communicate on the field of
battle.  Hence the topic matter.  Remember my original opinion was
that
using music on the battlefield is not a form of literal communication
IMO, or a better description would be complex communication.  Using
your rationale the lights on a stop light, red, yellow, and green are
a
language of sorts.

Yes. It is debatable indeed wether that is a language. When push comes to shove I think I believe those things to be a very limited language with just a few words and hardly any gramar. To me, within the larger context of comunicating ideas (possibly political ones) through the use of non-verbal sound the concept of comunication and the transfer of information are much more interesting then wether something is a actual language, should we be able to find a definition of "language" that everybody finds satisfactory..

Hope that helps.

Yes it does, but many of your thoughts and opinions open up other cans
of worms such as point of reference of an individual, of a culture,
context, point of reference of said context.  All points you addressed
directly or indirectly.  As is said i was afflicted with tunnel vision
inregards to all non military matter within the topic, again my
delerium must be to blame for this!


aLEKs


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