One of the major themes that is present throughout the texts that we’ve studied is that of inperfection. Indeed, when Lucier’s recordings are repeated, there is a slight change each time. In the original recording, the rendition of the original sound was not a perfect copy, but only mostly indicative. As such, each subsequent recording was a mostly accurate copy of the previous, eventually compounding onto each other into a composition that was ultimately completely different. That much was also clear when Aristotle emphasizes the inability of machines to have a voice. The output of the machine, in relation to the voice, is a mere sound that is meant to replicate it. Therefore, since the machine is seen as without a soul, it cannot make a truly accurate rendition of the sound of the voice, which does have a soul. The same spirit is true in Barthes’ argument, as he claims that one of the largest problems befalling musical description is related to imparting adjectives, which he sees as the most meager form of language. Though not outright mentioning the same topic as Aristotle, he too implies that beautiful sounds are simply too complex to be purely communicated, whether by human language in the case of music or by machines in the case of words.
