rules for sound as opposed to rules for substance
sound ceaselessly travels freely
while substance holds solid and firm
we have different strategies for each
one with specific attention
while the other is loosely dealt with by ignoring
there are substances that disobey
like flood surge, tsunamis,
forest fires, earthquakes etc.
sound can be regarded as inadvertent
surely there are cross-overs,
the chime-bar truck in the neighborhood,
airplanes overhead, car-alarm horns,
wild animals roaming the streets,
even fuming buses or large eighteen-wheelers
are regarded as noise
we’re faced different sets of operatives
for solids and for sounds.
getting picky about objects of physical location
ignoring sound’s onslaughts as if spontaneity occur.
is randomness part of the persuasion?
so many situations that clamor-demand.
loud cars, lawn movers, weed-whackers,
producing the immediacy of scrutiny and blame,
nuance rules or nature overrules seem to apply.
strategies that deal with mass,
yet sound seems to be less defined
sounds plays a game of dodge-ball
relative to accusations addressing.
neighbor washing dishes in a clattering way,
motor cycle blasting two blocks away,
thunder quite audibly near,
still regarded as innocuous noise,
trash-trucks roaming the streets,
train horn, even distant, eighteen times a day,
the church bell tower, every hour,
harmless passing as the hiss of traffic,
and the classic, dogs in the neighborhood,
whatnot barking and barking.
so passive with sound reality,
so vigilant with objects of mass
seeing implies one set of rules insistently
while sound seeks a more moderate approach.
that we all have very different versions
of how to react or respond to sound
then we do when confronted
with real objects in our world.
it is a curious find to me
to see how this all works . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment