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

[Bill Ashline <ashline@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/22/05, john saylor <js0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> if you read that group of words devoid of the message inherent in
> them, they're only words.
> if you view that group of colors and shapes devoid of the message
> inherent in them, they're only colors and shapes.

Sounds are not of the same order as linguistic signs.  are you are
saying is that words (linguistic signs) are arbitrary.  I don't
disagree.

> 
> what does this phrase mean:
> 'devoid of the message inherent in them'
> ?
> 
> what is the inherent message in sounds?

Well, read the context :-)  the statement made was that there was some
"music" that involved the clanging of silverware, which outside of the
declaration that they were made in opposition to the Iraq war would
not be inherently pregnant with such meaning, right?  Until those
sounds are collected under that message, as a listener, you don't
attach such intentionality, right?

> why does it matter if it's art or language? what is the difference
> between art and language? why is that distinction important?
> 

Lyotard's point is that signs cannot be taken as such outside of
culture.  It's culture that decides whether a sign is art or language
just as it is culture that decides if sounds are to be interpreted
politically.

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