Re: Quick guide to postmodernism (was: Re: Gibson (was: Re: Computer chicken))

Subject: Re: Quick guide to postmodernism (was: Re: Gibson (was: Re: Computer chicken))
From: bill thompson (
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 22:23:35 EDT

hey eliot,

i understand most of what you're saying but i'm having
trouble with one comment:

> the result "sounds
> good." This is because
> if it sounded bad, that would be a kind of appeal to
> an inner
> adjustment.

i'm wondering if in trying to make this more
manageable for me something got lost? i mean, who
determines what 'sounds bad' as compared to 'sounds
good'? wouldn't that be an example of a value system
based on a meta-narrative? i.e. one dominant value
system that determines what sounds good etc...sounds
good certainly can't just mean tonal or consonant

i'm guessing the gist of it was that pm is about the
sounds themselves without appealing to an 'inner
adjustment' or existing in reference to or as a result
of either a 'system' and/or higher/deeper meaning
(where as modernist works are very much about either
the system (serialism) or the attempt to craft the
'perfect' object or experience that opens you to a
transcendental 'higher/deeper' reality beyond this
one.) in other words, modernist works at some level
point somewhere else, where as postmodern works point
to themselves. yes?

my examples would be cage, who most certainly could be
considered p.m...much of his work is considered
difficult to listen to and thus to some, sounds bad
(but i love his work)...where as glass is often
considered very easy to listen to, and yet..well, i
hate him (lol)...well, it 'sounds bad' to me.


"The more you think about things the weirder they seem." -Calvin

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST