Re: [microsound] music is the ultimate incorruptible

[gerwin <gerwin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

actually, scenarios 1 & 2 are *utterly* different. in the first case, you're
listening to the sounds of a TRAIN (a material presence in the acoustic space
that you yourself inhabit), and in the second case you're listening to an AUDIO
FEED, i.e. pure sonic matter. the guy who made the recording, as well as the
source (which may or may not have been a train) is absent -- dead.

and in both cases it's entirely up to you what to do with the label "music."


:gerwin



On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:33:32 -0600, David Powers wrote:
> If you as a listener, listen to something as 'music," it is music
> within that context. The question of communication is irrelevant.
> Actually, "communication" is more properly the realm of car horns
> and ambulance sirens, and not of music. Music is interesting
> precisely because it refuses to communicate. It's ambiguous.
>
> Consider the case of a field recording:
>
> Scenario 1: A train is screeching along over my head. I'm late for
> work and in a hurry. I don't hear any music. Nothing is being
> communicated. It's just random noise that happens to be occurring.
>
> Scenario 2: Someone walks by with their mini-disc player, records
> the very same train, and releases it on a CD-R entitled "the
> Sublime Sounds of Chicago". I buy the CD and listen to it at home.
> I hear the very same train as in Scenario 1, but now I hear it as
> music. I think to myself, "the sounds of Chicago really are
> sublime."
>
> The sounds in 1 and 2 are the same (ignoring the limitations of
> recording technology for the moment). Only my perception as
> listener has changed. However, at no point did the actual creator
> of the sound, the TRAIN, intend to communicate.
>
> ~David






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