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

[David Powers <cyborgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Language is much broader than signals, although signals are included 
within language, particularly in the imperative statements: "Wash the 
dishes.  Get that report out by 3 P.M."  Signals are commands that are 
meant to be unambiguous and have a direct effect on the party receiving 
the communication.  A signal could also be entirely mechanical (or 
biological) with no human involved in the communication process.  A 
chemical in the brain can act as a signal after all.  I take spoken 
language, on the other hand, to include much ambiguity and to include 
the possibility for multiple interpretations and creative interplay 
which may or may not have any clear purpose or function.  Likewise, 
musically normally operates in an ambiguous way, as a play of abstract 
sonorities controlled by  arbitrary sets of rules and with any meaning 
or message tending to be ambiguous.  Clearly, however, sound can be used 
as a command or signal in an UN-ambiguous way, depending on the 
context.  Is not the return of the 4-to-the-floor kick drum after an 
extended absence not a command to resume dancing in house and techno music?

Deleuze and Guattari do some interesting exploration of "order words" 
and the relationship between language and command (and a signal is a 
kind of command) - a speech situation which, interestingly, they take as 
central to language whereas a philosopher like Habermas takes such 
situations to be marginal and not the "essence" of inter-subjective 
communication.

~David

graham miller wrote:

> just to play devil's advocate here, but isn't spoken language just
> 'signals' too? more complex and multifaceted, yes. more open to multiple
> interpretations and ambiguity? yes. but signals none less encoded into
> sound deep within the larynx... ditto for written language... every form of
> communication, which includes art, falls within the scope of semiotics...
>
> i'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'literal language' aside from
> mathematics, the only form of communication that holds true throughout the
> universe (more or less...)
> g.
>
> aleks vasic wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Well the use of music on the battle field is not "Literal
> > communication"  Its a form of cumminication that would be better labeld
> > as "Signals"  Because thats what they were.  Just because music can be
> > used in ways other then it was intended to, does not make it a literal
> > language.   I think you can come up with a better example then military
> > use of music, which at the time was the best way to communicate over
> > small distances.
> >
> > I never defined music or launguage.  Please reread my original post.
> >
> > aLEKs
> >
> >    

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