Guermantes
Senior Member
Isn't the song... the sound?
As Ray has pointed out, there is more to it than acoustics. You've used the term "organised sound" (a common but problematic definition for music) -- the "organised" component encapsulates a whole set of other external factors. Also the term "song" implies singing and therefore communication and intelligibility in a musical sense. Once again, the acoustics is just a part of it.
Or simly skip the ontology part (for a moment), and go directly to your dichotomy about song, from a single-individual/listener point of view:
This was my attempt to interpret what you are asking, so I actually thought it was your dichotomy.
Let's go back to your original question:
If a song is sound dependent, and we know that sound is always changing between staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated listening (due to many things, from setup to aural room impact), is it correct to state that a song is evolving and changing continuously?
"If a song is sound dependent" -- I'm not sure anyone completely agrees with this. I think we see sound as just one aspect of a song. See above.
"and we know that sound is always changing between staggered, non-contiguous, time-separated listening (due to many things, from setup to aural room impact)" -- it seems to me you are referring to a sound recording here that has the potential to be played back repeatedly. Difference and repetition.
"is it correct to state that a song is evolving and changing continuously?" -- I think this could be asked without invoking sound.
Are you asking if the sound of a recording of a song is evolving and changing continuously due to replay and acoustic variations?