Subject: Re: phonons/phonemes/phonograph
From: David Mooney (moko@city-net.com)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:06:43 EST
KEVIN AUSTIN wrote:
> sm .... 'ed
>
> >if language (langue) is distinct from words (parole) then EA music may
> >well be 'language' without words ?
>
> Hmmm try substituting 'vocabulary' for words ... and one of the 'blocks'
> may disappear. Try english here. Are all possible combinations of letters
> accptable as vocabulary elements?
Marinetti with his "free word" verse might think so. He deliberately attempted
to convey meaning with what superficially seems like nonsensical combinations
of letters. Context and clear intention made it work. This might suggest, to
continue the analogy with ea/cm, that internal consistency of a given piece
has as much to do with its meaning as any external vocabulary.
>
>
> How does one test a collection of 'elements' to find out if they are
> valid in the vocabulary? Try as follows ...
>
> Is 'saes eerht' an acceptable "vocabulary unit" in english?
> TEST: What does it mean?
>
> Do words (vocabulary elements) have to have meaning?
>
> Try the same with 'language'. It would appear to me that 'language' is
> about structure and relationships (but not necessarily the 'ships' that
> sail on the 'three seas' [above].
>
> Is [article] [noun] [verb], a valid 'structure' in english? As a
> structure, most likely, but this does not mean that all [a] [n] [v]
> structures are valid.
>
> The boat sailed. [article] [noun] [verb] ... meaning? yes -- 'valid'
> The seas went. [article] [noun] [verb] ... meaning? (poetic) yes ->
> The chair bit. [a] [n] [v] ... meaning? (uh .. poetic?)
> The tree ran. [a] [n] [v] ... getting more distant in terms of meaning.
> Western tonal music (1600 - 1890 [+]) has 'norms' regarding harmonic
> progression(s), and progressions (the relationships and structures) can
> be evaluated as to 'how they function' -- which may be somewhat similar
> to 'what they mean'.
>
> But does ea/cm have (the) properties of a 'language' (as outlined above)?
>
> Is there a way to 'evaluate' vocabulary elements? Is there a way to
> determine whether the elements have been 'correctly' (or acceptably)
> placed (or ordered)?
>
> Are there common elements between "Kontakte" and "Just more idle
> chatter"? What are they? At what level in the hierarchy of 'musical'
> perception do these common elements occur? (eg ... They are both made up
> of sounds, which is a pretty fundamental commonality.)
>
> Take a number of pieces (I would recommend, for example, DisContact II
> and/or either or both of Presence I and II), and compare them regarding
> 'vocabulary'. What is common (and at what level)? Are there things which
> are common to _all_ of the pieces? (These might be refered to as
> 'primitives' -- elements which are very 'low' in the ea/cm language tree.)
>
> (There are a number of analyses from Presence I on the CEC site ... have
> a look.)
>
> Happy new year ... which was here three hours before it will be there.
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
> kaustin@vax2.concordia.ca
-- David Mooney dmooney@city-net.com http://www.city-net.com/~moko/"Opaque melodies that would bug most people" (Don "Captain Beefheart" Van Vliet)
The Rhythmicon: http://www.city-net.com/~moko/rhome.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:06:43 EDT