Re: traduction/translation


Subject: Re: traduction/translation
From: Louis Dufort (siuol@sympatico.ca)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 00:33:23 EDT


Isn't not "Easy Listening"? ;-)

Sorry folks this was too easy and I'm in a corny mood (to much rain in
MTL)...

le 10/25/05 8:07 PM, Kevin Austin à kevin.austin@videotron.ca a écrit :

> Many, among them: reduced hearing, reduced listening, naive hearing /
> listening (see also
> http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=204 )
>
> You may (or may not) find the definition / translation proposed to be
> in accord with your understanding of the term in french.
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> At 19:49 -0400 2005/10/25, Chantale Laplante wrote:
>> Quelqu'un -quelqu'une saurait-il
>> la traduction en anglais de écoute réduite
>> (Anyone could suggest a translation?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Chantale Laplante
>
>
>
> The Ears article says, in part:
>
> In Schaefferian theory, reduced listening is the attitude which
> consists in listening to the sound for its own sake, as a sound
> object by removing its real or supposed source and the meaning it may
> convey.
>
> ... In reduced listening our listening intention targets the event
> which the sound object is itself (and not to which it refers) and the
> values which it carries in itself (and not the ones it suggests).
>
> ... Reduced listening is therefore an "anti-natural" process, which
> goes against all conditioning. The act of removing all our habitual
> references in listening is a voluntary and artificial act which
> allows us to clarify many phenomena implicit in our perception.
>
> Thus, the name reduced listening refers to the notion of
> phenomenological reduction (Époché), because it consists to some
> extent of stripping the perception of sound of everything that is not
> "it itself" in order to hear only the sound, in its materiality, its
> substance, its perceivable dimensions.
>
> Reduced listening and the sound object are thus correlates of each
> other; they define each other mutually and respectively as perceptual
> activity and object of perception.
>
>
> For me, there are a number of fundamental problems with the original
> concept, but it is, as stated, a theory.
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST