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

[jeff gburek <tsazmaniac@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Ashline wrote:
> > I am insisting that outside of an interpretive
> framework, sound has no
> 
> Damian Stewart replied: Can we even speak
meaningfully of sound 'outside of
> an interpretive 
> framework'?
> 
> Doesn't this just mean sound that is heard by no-one
> and/or recorded in 
> no way? (Or recorded and not listened to.)
> 
> Can we say anything useful about or via this
> concept?

I think this very question might have been behind my
initial motivations for getting into this thread. When
I said that sound is always being interpreted or
always tending to become meaningful and then recounted
my story of Derrida, I was basically saying that we
are involved in a autonomously renewing poetic
process. I do not agree that we have the unshakeable
knowledge to say that anything is inherently without
meaning, anything. My take on Derrida (as it relates
by analogy to this issue) might be a bit "talmudic"
but I take the undecidability (between there being a
tending toward meaning and there being no one true
meaning) in the strictest sense. When we declare
something to be inherently without meaning we have put
it in a place already. We deny it the possibility of
having a voice. Not allowing that something may have a
voice is the first step in it's exploitation. So my
own approach to sound is rather to wait and listen. 

--- Damian Stewart <damian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

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