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

[aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, the use of INSTRUMENTS, to communicate on the battlefield is not 
music in its traditional sense.  More along the lines of humans being 
problem solvers and using whatever is at hand to solve said problem, in 
this case keeping formations in sync, signaling attack and retreats, 
and other military gobbledy gook.  Its definatley not a language when 
compared to literal communication(i assume this to be written word).  
Its very limited for todays world, but it did serve its purpose.  Non 
exhistent in todays military world aside from nostalgia and tradition.

I just felt that this was a bad example.

Inregards to literal language, maybe i am using the term incorrectly?

  Every culture and demographic on the planet has developed one, wether 
its taught in the written form or verbally.  Sure you can compare it to 
many things and have a valid argument, but i am more interested in what 
is used in the real world(efficient communication) in this example.

Another fun factoid.  Through the use of math, all written word(literal 
communication) is universal.  Was it guess work that helped us break 
down the meaning of hieroglyphics?(Math makes it very efficient guess 
work!:))  How about the enigma machine via WWII?  It can be argued that 
this device could be used to communicate with any intelligent life in 
the universe.


aLEKs


On Jun 27, 2005, at 2:01 PM, 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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