Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

“...and the rest is silence.

William Shakespear

0. Silence is not.
0.1. But in the schizopathological abstraction of the listening subtracted from the listening.
0.11. Silence is a linguistic empty promess.
1. Everything sounds.
1.1. Everything that is have some kind of reflex in the sound body.
1.2. Sound precedes all experience – that something is like this.
1.21. It precedes how, but don’t precedes what.
1.3. To sound, we listen only.
1.31. In simplified terms: sound is number.
2. Listening is everything thats sounds in a determined timespace.
2.1. Listening is the whole of musics, not sounds.
2.11. Listening is determined by the musics, and for being all the musics.
2.111. Listening is the hear-there (or if prefered a hearing dasein)
2.2. Listening resolves itself in musics.
2.21. Because the whole of the musics determines what is noise and as well what silences.
2.22. Everything that silences sounds another sound in the listening.
2.3. Listening is the existence of modulations, sound movements in timespace.
2.31. Is essential to a sound to be able to be part of a music.
2.32. Modulations are links between sounds.
2.33. Sound itself, pure, is an imaginative utopia (an unreachable limit of the sound atomism),
but sound movements are facts.
2.331. Would seem at random if sound could exists by itself, alone, and later ajusted
itself to a noise or silent situation.
2.332. If sounds can appear in a music, it must already be in it.
2.333. We can hear no sound outside of the possibility of its modular links with others.
2.334. We can only hear-in-the-world.
2.4. Sound is auto-sufficient in the way that it can appears in all possible situations, but this form of
auto-sufficiency is exactly what connects it in music by the modulations, that is to say in another point
of view a way of not being auto-sufficient.
2.41. If I know a sound, I know as well all its possibilities of modulations in musics(arbitrary
the movements of pulse, harmony, melody, intensity, timbristic color and space).
2.42. The possibility of its appearence in musics are its modulations(arbitrary the movements
of pulse, harmony, melody, intensity, timbristic color and space).
2.5. Given all the sounds are given all musics possible too.
2.6. Sound is object and name.
2.61. Sound is simple.
2.62. Sound is the elemental(stoichéa) in listening.
2.621. Sound is the expoent of music.
2.63. Every sound can be decomposed in other sounds that compose it through its
modulations(arbitrarily the movements of pulse, harmony, melody, intensity, timbristic color
and space).
2.64. The whole of sounds is the noise, not the listening. Because of that they can not be
2.65. Sound is its own meaning.
3. Noise can only determines a physical form, and not the metaphysical passional(pathós) properties of the
listening. For these are produced only by music – are made only by the modular configuration of sounds.
3.1. Sounds have no feeling
3.2. A sound differs from other – disconsidering its modular properties – only for being different.
3.3. The concept of sound is what every sound have in common, the general form of sound.
3.31. Unspeakable form that is.
3.4. Noise subsists independently of whatever listening there is.
3.5. Time and space are the media where the sounds hang together through modulations.
3.6. Only having sounds there can be a fix form of the listening.
3.61. The fix, noise and sound are one and only.
4. The modular configuration of sounds makes music.
4.1. Like the molecules of water down the river.
4.11. No metaphor could describe what I make of the listening.
4.2. In music sounds are to each other in a determined modulation.
4.21. The way that sounds link each other in music is its musical structure.
4.22. Style is the possibility of fixation of these modular structures(arbitrary the movements of
pulse, harmony, melody, intensity, timbristic color and space).
4.23. The whole of musics is the listening.
4.24. What differs the listening from the noise is the existence of a passional logic (pathologic)
in the listening and composition of sound modulations.
4.3. The whole of musics determines what silences.
4.31. All musics are independent from each other.
4.32. From the existence or inexistence of a music we can’t conclude the existence or
inexistence of another.
4.4. We feel sounds and put feelings in musics.
4.5. Music experience is sinesthesical.
4.51. The sound modulations generates feelings and sinesthesical memories modulations.
4.6. We compose and listen to music.
4.61. Music is the passional logic in between sounds.
4.611. Music listeningcomposition produces situations through the existence or
inexistence of certain sound modulations.
4.612. Music listeningcomposition is more than a model of the passion.
4.6121. To sounds correspond, in composition feelings, passions.
4.6122. Feeling is composing. Listening is so far, composing as well.
4.61221. Listeningcomposing is influenced by listenercomposer’s every
4.61222. I don’t listen to anyothers music, but only my own.
4.61223. The composed music is never the same one listened.
4.613. That sounds are to each other in determined melodies, harmonies, pulses,
timbristic colors and spaces produces feelings that way to each other.
4.62. Music is a modulation of what we feel.
4.621. Music is the schizophrenia between sound and listening.
4.7. Music is proposition and fact.
4.71. It’s like this that listeningcomposition reaches passion, embracing.
4.72. Like the ruler(métron) pointed at the border of passions.
4.721. Only measuring the extreme parts of it.
4.73. Music is the perpetual creative relation of modulations between the sounds that trespass
4.731. The creative relation consists in the logical coordinations between feelings and
4.732. Music produces its own measures, its own rules.
4.74. Only who feels something listencomposes.
4.741. Music, to be composed must have something in common with some pathós.
4.742. Composition can compose every passionfeeling which form it has in common.
The melancholic composition, everything that is melancholy to the composer; the
chaotic composition everything that’s chaos; etc.
4.8. A music is not an image, although an image can correspond to it.
5. Style is a consequence of composition, no the opposite.
5.1. Style, the way of composing, is the possibility that sounds are ones to anothers as the feelings of
its listenercomposer.
5.11. There can not be an hierarchy of styles. We can only listen to what we compose ourselves.
5.12. As an example of it we can imagine the historical myth of pictoric perspective’s discovery
and the impact that it caused in the intensive and timbristic modulations between medieval and
renaissance western european music.
5.2. Auditingcomposing produces its passion from the outside, its point of view is its style.
5.21. Auditingcomposing may agree or not with the reality of its listenercomposer.
5.211. From these differences of styles are born the influences and school fights
throughout time.
5.212. To not synpathize with a music is to not synpathize with the passionreasons
which we believe its listenercomposer must have to have writen it that way.
5.3. Auditioncomposition can’t be put aside the listenercomposers’ passionreasons.
5.4. What every composition, no matter what style, must have in common with the passionreason to
present it is its pathologic schizo, the listenercomposer’s filters to the world.
5.41. These filters link feelingsideas to sound through the continuous creation of sinesthesical
relations between memory and sensitive experiences.
5.5. Sound is not stylized.
5.51. Although, every logic is under an aesthetic.
5.52. And every composition is logic.
5.521. Passion logic, that is.
5.53. Composition music a possible situation in logic timespace.
5.531. Composition gathers the possibility of the situation that it produces.
5.532. Composition produces what produces by the way of its style.
5.6. What composition produces is its own meaning.
5.7. Trying to explain a music is trying to explain world through that music.
5.71. We are as we sound.
5.72. Music is the listenercomposer’s onthology.
5.73. Music is the schizo staggering between passions and reasons: imaginary sounds and
6. Style are the rules of the passion logical schizo games.
6.1. The passion logic of a composition are its modulations of sounds. Which arbitrarialy I example
with the concepts of melody, intensity, harmony, pulse, timbristicolor and space movements.
6.2. “Listening to the muses” as the term musicae proposes reffers that listening as com-posing, putting
together (ouvire aude).
6.21. The whole of modulations is the composition.
6.211. The whole of compositions is the listening.
6.22. We can’t compose anything ilogical,for thought is logical and composing starts in it to
6.3. In modulation, the feeling express itself sensibly and perceptively to the listenercomposer.
6.31. We use sound to listen to what is between them, the modulations.
6.32. To the modulation belongs everything that is passional projection, but not pathós itself.
In modulation is the form of its feeling but not its contents.
6.33. Modulation consists that its elements, the sounds, are ones to anothers from a certain
distance. Every modulation is a music.
6.331. Modulation is not a mixture of sounds. (As an proposition is not the mixture of
words.) Modulation is continuous and articulated.
6.4. Only musics can express a meaning, not a sound class.
6.41. Becames clearer the substance of modulation when we conceive it composed not of
melodies, harmonies, rythms or any other arbitrary modular variable, sound dimensions, but
from pathóslogós.
6.42. Two kinds of modulations shown to be possible: the elementaries, composed of sounds
and the moleculars made from other modulations.
6.421. The molecular modulation is in dynamic relation to the ones that constitute its
6.422. Every elementary is a necessary ilusion to evade the rational abyss of impossible
language essence.
6.5. Modulation substitute, in composition, to sounds.
6.51. Sounds can only be named, not described. Modulations can be described, not named.
(modulations are like moving arrows as sounds are like spots.)
6.6. There’s only one and only complete analysis of a modulation: the modulation itself.
6.61. Every musical composition is untitleabled.
6.62. Titling a music is to reduce it to a poethic image.
6.63. Only music makes sense; and only in the modular context sounds have an meaning.
7. In the limit-case, the uncountable modular variables (such as melody, harmony and timbristicolor
arbritarily) are one and same sound modulation.
7.1. Every modulation can be decomposed in various constituint modulations from this complex in
arbitrary variables.
7.11. Which coud be the elementary modulations?
7.111. The ones made only with sounds and not other modulations. Since we can’t
specify the exact number of different sounds, as well we couldn’t tell it.
7.112. Even pulse, harmony melody, timbristicolor, space localization and intensity ar
arbitrary traces of the sound movement.
7.113. In last instance, the elementary(stoichéia) modulations are as well unreachable
necessary abstract limits for a musical language.
7.12. The modular variables can or not interinfluence itselves.
7.2. If we fix variable constituint parts of a modulation, a class of modular variable values is generated,
such as rythms and melodies for examples.
7.21. These variables depend yet of what the listenercomposer, according to its arbitrary
passionlogic, wants to mean(meinen) with it.
7.22. If transformed in variable, however, all the signs which meaning was arbitrarily
determined, the class keeps existing.
7.221. This class of theorethical fixation, however, don’t depend anymore of any
convention, but only from the nature of the modulation. It corresponds to a subjective
rational form - a logic of composition prototype.
7.23. The values that the modular variable can assume are fixed. The fixation of values is the
7.24. The fixation of the modular variable’s values is the modulations spcifications which
trademark is the variable.
7.241. Fixation is a descrition of a modulation.
7.242. Fixation will work only with themes, not their meanings.
7.243. And only that is essencial to the thematic fixation, that it can be a description of
the modulations’ fixed themes in music and nothing report about the style.
7.3. The theme is the feeling that is intented to be presented in one or more modular variable.
7.31. Theme is the soundimage.
7.32. Two modular variable can have, therefore, the same theme in common – designing
different passionreasons.
7.321. The common mark of two modulations can never be denounced for a common
theme between them, but througout different ways of composition.
7.322. For the theme is, doubtlessly, arbitrary.
7.3221. We could, therefore, choose as well two different themes and, in this
case, what would rest of the modulations?
7.33. In current composition, happens with frequency that a same theme composes in different
ways – belongs, therefore, to different modulations – or that two themes are used, in
modulation, superficially in the same way.
7.331. The same theme repeated is not the same modulation.
7.4. To recognize the modulation in the music, we should atent to the significant use of it in the
7.41. It’s only in its passionalogical use, that a music determines its own style.
7.42. If a theme is useless to the musical syntax, it doesn’t have a feeling nor a sense.
7.421. In the composition’s passionalogical schizo, the feeling of a music can never play
any role; it must appears without ever being said about any musical meanings, but only a
description of modulations.
7.5. Modulations have essential and casual traces.
7.51. Are casual the traces that derivate from the particular modular composition manner.
7.52. Essencial, those which on themselves prepare the modulation to produce its feeling and
7.521. The essencial in modulation is, therefore, qhat have in common all the
modulations that can express the same passionreason.
7.522. In similar way the essential in a theme is what it has in common with all the
themes that express the same modular variable.
7.6. Could be said: sound is what all the modulations that constitute that sound have in common.
7.7. A particular way of timespace fixation of the listening, a style, can have no importance at all, but
it’s ulterly necessary it to be a possible way.
7.71. And this happens in general composition: the singular is shown again and again as
something importantless, mas the possibility of each singularity teach us a lesson about the
essence of sound.
7.711. A music, for example, can have a song in it without necessarily reduce itself to
the songform.
8. The pathological schizoid theory of each listenercomposer is its fixation of stylish themes between sound
modulations and experiences.
8.1. Mankind have the ability to construct musical languages which with we can express every of our
passionalogical experiences without necessarily knowing how e what every modulation means to us.
8.2. One of the main sources of our musical misunderstandingis that we don’t have a complete, but
fragmented hearing of the sounds’ use in our musics.
8.21. Panoramic listening consists in hearing the conections. From there comes the importance
of the continuous search and creation of new intermediary modular articulations between the
ones that already exists. Subjective concepts between harmonies and melodies, for an arbitrary
8.22. Creating this way always new musical thorical concepts and modular variable classes.
8.3. The relations of musical languages, the styles, are close to the ones kept between games. For if
you contemplate them, you won’t be able in truth to see something that would be common to all of
them, but family resemblances between the sound modulations.
8.31. Arbitrary example: some musics are similar for their constant rythms, but differ in
8.311. The whole of the musics of a style is its musical language.
8.4. Human musical language is like an outfit that covers the constant noise from the listening. And, in
fact, in some way that we can’t even cogitate the figure that’s covered; this because the outside fit was
made for very different meanings than to make recognizable the shape of the listenercomposer’s
organless body.
9. Musical language is the fixed style.
9.1. The private language is the schizo through pathóslogós.
9.2. Style is the focus that produces listening from the noise.
9.3. Every music is a “critic of the musical language”.
9.31. The silent deals that allow the current musical language patterns are hugely complicated.
9.4. The vinyl record, the musical idea, the music sheets, the physics waveshapes; them all keep
between themselves the same internal figurative relation that there is between the musical language
and the listening.
9.41. The logic construction is common to all of them.
9.42. The logic is the language of the games.
9.5. That there is a general rule for a game throughout which the listenercomposer can extract a music
from a sheet record it to a vinyl that a gramophone will play from its levels, and then again from
listening writing a sheet. And this rule is projection, transcreation of sounds and modulations.
9.6. To understand the essence of composition, think of a equation poetry that figures feelings that
describes through subjective images of dancing algarisms non-stop.
9.61. Music reflects only a feeling: because I not know the situation that it evokes, for more that
I understand its composition logic.
9.62. The listener gets in the limit of music the intuition of its composer.
9.621. Music produces the metaphisical.
9.63. Music is its silented meaning.
9.631. More we understand a music the more we understand its constituint parts, its
sound modulations.
9.632. To sounds we can’t understand cause there’s no sound itself.
10. Style’s schizopathologic theory doesn’t procede in a way to explain each music in it, but the elementary
modulations that constitute these musics.
10.1. The modulations ostensive education starts from the stylish themes of each listenercomposer that
learnteaches us. With music itself, we have to handle ourselves.
10.2. It’s in music’s core the power to communicate a new feeling.
10.21. Music must communicate a new meaning with the old musical language feelings apriori.
10.211. A modulation of old modulations is a new modulation.
10.3. Music is not the representation of feelings. It is the producer of those feelings through the
listenercomposers’ own sinestesic memories experiences.
10.31. Reality is compared to the passions and reasons by the musical liseteningcomposing, but
music itself is uncomparable to reality, there’s our schizo ride.
10.4. A music can’t be truth or false. Music does not argue.
10.41. Music can only produces the existence or inexistence of certain sound and therefore
feelings modulations.
11. Everything that can be heard can be composed.
11.1. Music can produce any feeling, but can’t produce what it has in common with feelings - it’s
11.11. To represent it, we should’ve install ourselves, with music, outside our own passions and
reasons, outside ourselves and our listening in the extreme case.
11.2. And music does not represent.
11.21. Music produces the passional logics, and these stylish languages reflects in the music
11.22. What reflects in the musical language is not musicable.
12. A musical language is the representation of a composinglistening style.
12.1. Music produces the listenerscomposers’ schizopathologic through the musical structures, its style
elementary arbitrary divisions .
12.11. We can discuss the formal properties of the sounds and modulations, its musical
structure, or we can as well, make relations between different structures.
12.12. The presence of these properties and relations can not, however, generalize the
structures, uniques: particulars from those modulations of those sounds in that music in
12.121. The properties of a music, we can call it the style trace.
12.122. It’s a structural propertie, the traces that without the sound modulations, na
therefore the themes, would not be even thinkable (arbitrarily pulse, harmony,
timbristicolor, melody, etc)
12.2. We can’t distiguish two different structures by saying that this one have and the other doesn’t a
specific propertie; for this pressuposes that makes some sense to enunciate both properties from both
the compositions.
12.21. The presence of a structural relation between two musics expresses itself in the relation
of their modular structure.
12.3. Musical structures are uncountable in a lifetime.
12.4. That’s why sound logic is under the control of a musical passion.
12.41. Although sound logic is as well a music generator passion.
12.42. The simplest music may be the most complex to a different listenercomposer.
12.5. That’s why only music gives us definitive problems.
12.6. Every music is possible as well as every feeling it generates.
12.61. Musical tautology, or the perfect repetition of a previous sound, as showed us the
minimalists, is impossible because of the ever increasing ammount of earlier sounds memories
in the duration.
12.611. If we listen two musics, the second have the first’s memory.
12.612. There can’t be metamusic.
12.6121. But we still can use the old’s as modulations in the new one.
12.62. Musical contradiction, or the complete denial of a previous sound, as showed us the
randomists, is impossible since every sound has a natural connection between themselves.
12.7. Music is not probable , a modulation occurs or not.
13. Improvisation is apriori.
13.1. From a theme no other theme can be logically concluded.
13.2. From a noise or music, we can’t conclude it’s denial.
13.21. Silence idea’s arbitrary birthplace.
13.3. Every sound in logic should admit justification.
13.31. Evidence of the unlogical portion of music, its passional schizo.
13.32. There is no proeminent sound.
13.321. The birds don’t know which way they’ll sing, they sing.
13.4. Every said to be musical logic focus on the modulaitons that its listenercomposer distinguishes
13.41. This listeningcomposing focus is its schizopathologic.
13.5. The illusion of answering a music problem is the theme making.
13.51. The sound solutions are other sound problems.
13.52. Our sound problem are our most concrete, for it deals with our body pulsions, both
physic and metaphysical.
13.6. Music is a sound game with rules in movement.
14. The specification of any special form to be better is arbitrary.
14.1. The limits of my listening are the limits of my composing.
14.2. The limits of my composing are the limits of my listening.
14.21. Listening and my music are one and the same.
14.3. The world such as the encounter between sound and sense, shows the inexistence of the
listenercomposer subject.
14.4. The listenercomposer does not belong in listening, but it’s its limits.
14.41. Listenercomposer is its musics limits.
14.411. Authoring is the limit of a certain stylish notion of a music.
14.412. A certaing diet of our plagiarisms.
14.4121. Compose, posing with, is the plagiarism, the transterritorialization of
14.4122. Original perhaps only the big bang!, this paradise lost of the first sound-
itself (if big bangs!)
14.4123. To feel is to plagiate.
14.41231. We plagiate a knowledge for it’s flavour.
14.5. Where in the world could we find a metaphysical listenercomposer?
14.51. You tell yourself that it all happens in the ears and it’s range. But the earing system does
not listen to itself.
14.52. And nothing in the listening range allow to conclude that we listen through a ear.
14.521. We presume it from our other senses.
14.522. We listen with our whole.
14.6. Isto está ligado a não ser nenhuma parte de nossa experiência apriori.
14.61. Everything we listen could be different.
14.62. There’s no apriori order of the sounds
15. In composition, process and results are equivalent.
15.1. Competence and performance are unseparable.
15.2. There’s only process and performance. The work results only in it’s composer’s death. And that’s
when we’ll get to know its competence.
15.3. Musical theory is the listenercomposer using its schizopathologicomposition as na estethical
15.31. Music is transcendental.
15.32. Music trancendes its listenercomposer in its passionreasons.
15.4. Compositions are modulations averiguations.
15.5. To the question of knowing if musical problem requires intuition to be solved, is clear to me that
is the musical language of the listenercomposer the means of work of its intuition.
15.51. Tonal mechanics, by example, describes listening in a unitary fixed form, the klavier.
Conceive a white keys surface, over which there are black irregular stains. We’d say then: No
matter what is the configuration of the surface or the stain, I can near myself of a description of
it by covering it with a square net, convenietly thin(tone and semitones) and naming each one as
I please, if it’s white or black – natural or sustaindbemoled.
15.52. There I reduced the surface in a unitary fixed form. But still once more, this form is
arbitrary! I could have used with same sucess, triangular or hexagonal rhizomatic nets (as the
pentatonics, frequencial microtonals, dodecafonic modes) or yet I could just travelled
throughtout all the kinds of net I could remember at the time in the intuition of the stain itself.
15.6. To the different nets correspond the different musical systems.
15.61. And all nets are equally logical.
15.611. There are no no pianos in the same tuning.
15.62. A musical system is, the complete description of the sound body, the listening through a
determined kind of reduction.
15.63. A attempt to, according to just one plan, build every truthful music to a
15.7. What a listenercomposer silences is its false.
15.8. But no listenercomposer ends in saying his or hers listeningcomposing limits, but they always
try to express the general limits of it.
15.81. Sound experience is solipsist and in that, ever unique.
15.82. This writings are part of my musical theory, based uppon my experiences and sinestesic
memories as a listenercomposer.
16. We can’t compare any process with the timespace way – that can only be experimented in the sound
modulations – but only with other durable processes.
16.1. Two sounds can be in the same space at the same time, in the same velocity o not, for they
modulate each other.
16.111. Could be said they’re one and same sound.
16.112. Two or more different musics could be as well be assigned from these very
sounds through the many hearing modulations of noise from the diverse
16.2. That’s why we can only describe the time course of a music throughout comparing it with other
arbitrary time metter(clock, metronome, music sheet or a recording).
16.21. From where we learn the total relativity of classical modular time patterns(andante,
allegro, etc) and note highness( the klavier central La at 220mHz[sic]).
16.3. The whole modern music listening is builded in over the ilusion that the so called tonal, modal,
serial, minimal and physical laws are complete explanations of the listening fenomenons.
16.31. Standing in front of these musical laws as a untoucheable moral god, like the first ones
to play flutes, affraid of any other tuning that not their own.
16.32. And ones and others are right and wrong. The ancient, however, were clearer, in the
sense thei recognized a limit to their knowledge, meanwhile in our scientific systems is
necessary to appear that everything is explained.
16.4. Listening is independent of willing.
16.5. The process of a musical theory consists in adopting the simpler law qe can to consonate every of
our experiences.
16.51. This process doesn’t have any logical source, but a whole schizopathological walk
through our listeningcomposing.
16.52. There is, however, no reason to believe the simpler will happen.
16.6. Music is everywhere, but has no domain of its own.
17. There is no closed musical system.
17.1. There is no logical need for any musical system.
17.2. There are perhaps pragmatical ones(cultural, monetary, historical, politica, etc.).
17.21. The position that musical theory ocupies actually, in the heart of the listeningcomposing
prison, conducts us to the adoption of a definition of music as a mere media of message
transmission; and the rest, the schizopathologic as being only the pejorative use of the noise
concept or the utopic tacit utopy.
17.3. The question of its interpenetration in the social field(socius) is never brought to discussion, the
issues concerning the context and the texture of the so called musicaltext remain excluded.
17.31. These contextual needs are as well modulations of a listeningcomposing in the sense that
the music’s ontology is based on the feelings and thoughts of the listenercomposer, and that this
one is in the world.
17.32. There’s no musical languange in itself, a theoretical unity such as tonalism is inseparable
from the construction of a power formation, in this case the monoteistic tone.
17.321. The same way there’s no national music, but retaken of musical power in a
certain nation by a certain group of listenercomposer using or not from certain alike
memories as weapon.
17.322. There’s no musical revolution without a revolution of thoughts and passions.
17.4. Listening comes from the elemental core of the first sound significations, or as the fundamental
traces of the ostensive education pragmatics from a certain type of society, and as the expression of a
abstract mecanism that assures the consistency of a certain type of musical order.
17.41. For example, the question is not if the listenercomposer is the owner or not of its music,
but exactly the desterritorialization of a listeningcomposition from this pragmatical context of
owners/plagiarists through its reterritorialization in the creators’ own schizopathologic.
17.42. Power posses the joy of musicing just like any other orgasm, to manipulate it and make it
a attached product of servilism.
17.5. Every music cristalizes a mute dance of flowing rizomatic modulations at the same time
throughout social and individual bodies.
18. Every sound have the same value, but music have distinct ones.
18.1. The meaning of listening must be outside of it, in what its focus silences of the noise.
18.11. In listening, everything is how it is and happens as happens; there isn’t in it no value –
and if there was, it would have no value at all.
18.111. If there is a value that have value, it must be outside of every happening and
being like this.
18.112. Because every happening is casual.
18.12. What makes it not being casual, must be outside of it, instead it would be as well casual,
18.13. That’s why there can’t be merely logical compositions.
18.2. Music’s pathologic is only fully expressed in the path of the compositions and only for the
listenercomposer itself.
18.21. Pathologic is transcendental.
18.3. The first think that come to mind when you formulate a musical law in the way “you must...” is:
what if I don’t? It’s clear, however, that a theory has nothing to do with punishment or rewards in the
musical sense... Again only in a pragmatical sense (socially, monetary, etc.).
18.31. However, this question of which would be the consequences of a composition shouldn’t
matter to a listenercomposer that wishes to be faithfull to the passions that drove him to start
18.32. There must have, in fact, a specie of passional reward and punishment, but they must be
in the music.
18.321. And this so called reward must be some kind of pleasure and the punishment
something umpleasent to the listenercomposer.
18.4. Of the will as the carrier of passions and feelings nothing can be said.
18.41. This will only music can compose.
18.5. If a good or bad will changes listening, it can only changes the limits of listening, not the musics;
not what can be musicized, the passions.
18.51. Listening with it will become, with it, another listening essencially.
18.52. Must, then, to grow or diminish as a whole.
18.521. The happy ones’ listening differs from the unhappy ones.
18.53. Just like listening with deafness doesn’t perish, but changes.
18.531. Deafness is a listening event, as Beethoven’s myth teached me with tears.
18.6. The solution to the soundmusical enigma is outside of soundmusic.
18.61. How might be listening is completely indifferent to what. Silence doesn’t reveals itself in
18.611. All musics are part of the problem, not the solution.
18.612. Every singing is a part of the singing.
18.6121. Only silence solves.
18.62. From the listening feeling as a limited totallity(péras) is produced the feeling that silence
hides in the abstraction of the beyond any limits(ápeiron).
18.7. To a answer that can’t be given, a question can’t be made as well.
18.71. Silence does not exists, or yet, I don’t have anything to say too and I’m saying it.
18.72. If a dissonance can be composedlistened, a consonance can as well.
18.721. We can only proclaim a dissonance when we believe in a consonance.
18.8. The right method for a musical theory would be exactly this: nothing to say, unless what can be
said; that is, schizopathological stairs through which we got to our present listening – and that’s
nothing to do with a musical theory; and then, everytime someone pretended to say something about
the sound or musical laws, show him or her that he or she did not confered all of his passional and
logical relations to the modulations – and there are always more modulations that can be thinked of –
in his theory. This method, unfortunately would seem unsatisfactory to he or she – wouldn’t feel that
we would be teaching music.
18.9. My theories show my path untill the listening of this text: those who understood me, just
recognized them as the picture of my schizopathological deliriums, now thats almost done with it.
18.91. Throw the stairs away!
18.10. Writing about music is a passionating paradoxx. At the same time we can never reach the haze
of the feelings and reasons modulations, the pencil dancing over the paper is already music giving a
new listening to life.
18.101. The words with which I express my musics are, in part, my reaction to my music.
18.102. My music is as well reaction to my words.
19. Of what can’t be said, we should sing.

“...la la ri la la...”
Lewis Caroll