After reading Russolo's essay about noise-sound and its connection between the proliferation of machinery, I began thinking about the underlying messages within the text. From what I can deduce, Russolo alluded to the "boring" nature of traditionally composed music consisting of pure sound produced by traditional instruments and contrasted that with the intriguing unfimiliarity of noise-sound. Considering the emphasis he placed on the rise of the machine in today's culture, I am left wondering if the shift from less pure sound to more noise-sound necessarily coincides with the shift from less manmade sound to more machinemade sound. It seems as though many noise-sounds can be made through more organic means than those of "falling of pistons" or "the stridency of mechanical saws" mentioned in the essay. At one point he refers to "thunder, wind, cascades, rivers, streams, leaves" and a variety of other natural sounds, although he fails to further explore them. It would be interesting to hear a composition consisting purely of sounds from nature to see whether or not any recognizable rhythm would arise.
Also, after discussing the experimentation of John Cage today, I began to question wether a human's experience of sound is really the criteria for sound truly existing. For instance, when John Cage went into the polyurethane room and heard his own heart beating, he concluded that there is no such thing as silence. My immediate reaction was to consider what would happen in a vaccuum. If John Cage were to fire sound waves out into space he would hear absolutely nothing, however that doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist. That being said, what is the criteria for silence? Not percieving audible sound waves or not having sound waves exist at all? Would a def person experience John Cage's definition of silence, or would they technically still exist in a non-silent world? I'm not sure whether I agree with Mr. Cage or not, but I will surely contemplate this concept more in the future.
