Given the contradictions of Schaeffer's text and the absence of any true explication  of it, one could ask to what extent an "after Schaeffer" (après Schaeffer) might be anything other than an "according to Schaeffer" (d'après Schaeffer) in disguise. Yet, Ouïr, entendre, écouter, comprendre après Schaeffer holds surprises: with welcome sobriety, the Xenakis expert Makis Solomos places Schaeffer's phenomenology under the aegis of Merleau-Ponty rather than Husserl in its existential bent; the composer Régis Renouard Larivière brings to a close his inquiry into Schaeffer's conception of musicalness  with an outstanding exegesis; Marcel Frémiot illustrates the relevance of Schaeffer's research to semiotic analysis; and the semiologist Jean Molino reduces the Sound Object to the far-famed poietic/esthesic/neutral tripartition only to find fault with Schaeffer for not fitting into this all-purpose scheme.
Table of Contents
|INTRODUCTION, by Jean-Christophe Thomas||
|Phenomenologist Schaeffer, by Makis Solomos||
|Pierre Schaeffer: Sound as a Phenomenon of Civilization, by Hugues Dufourt||
|The Sound Object or the Environment Held in Abeyance, by Jean-François Augoyard||
|Object, Song, by Régis Renouard Larivière||
|Music and the Object, by Jean Molino||
|Phonogène Schaeffer, by François Bayle||
|Pierre Schaeffer: Music and Radio Research and Creation, by Jean-Claude Risset||
|Dynamics of the Freezing of the Image, by Francis Dhomont||
|Establishing Relational Frameworks for the Analysis of Post-Schaefferian Music, by Denis Smalley||
|Organized Noise, by Lelio Camilleri||
|From Sound Object to Temporal Semiotic Units, by Marcel Frémiot||
|Hybrids, by Pierre Schaeffer||
|The Travels of Orpheus, by Sylvie Dallet||
 "To understand" is admittedly an inadequate rendering of Schaeffer's entendre. In the French language, "hearing", "listening", "understanding" and "comprehending" all are lexicalized acceptations of entendre, by semantic derivation from the etymological sense, "to tend to", and hence, "to turn one's attention towards". This allows Schaeffer to construe entendre as "to hear", "to listen", "to understand" and "to comprehend" in mindfulness of one's intention. To approximate Schaeffer's entendre, the reader is requested to construe "to understand" as "to stand under the influence of (a particular intention [of listening])". "To listen for" and "to listen out for" might as well have been used.
 On "explication", see Barbara Stanosz in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics v. 1, pp. 246 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986).
Giving an explication for (or explicating) an unclear concept (one that is vague, ambiguous or simply lacking in definition) consists in replacing it by a new, exact, and well defined concept that is close enough to the former one to take over its role in scientific (philosophical etc.) discourse. The earlier concept is called the explicandum, the new one an explicatum of the former. The condition of adequacy of an explication (that makes clear the sense of the expression "to be close enough" as used above) goes as follows: the concept C' is an adequate explicatum of the concept C if and only if no important proposition containing C changes its supposed truth-value (the property of being true or false) when C is replaced in it by C'. Thus, the adequacy of an explication depends upon the set of contexts of the explicandum that are taken to be important. See the article "Osez dire ce que vous appelez pomme" ("Dare to Say What You Call Apple", Ars Sonora 3, March 1996, http://julienas.ipt.univ-paris8.fr/~arsonora/revue/rev-indx.htm), which Chion so dismissed (see "Une réaction de Michel Chion", Ars Sonora 5, April 1997, ibidem).
Posted 13 September 2001.
Send comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
copyright ©2001 ISAST