12. CONCLUSIONS
After my observations and practice so far, I have come to the conclusion that this playful deconstruction that many creators look for, especially in vocal-based music, already exists in the limitless language that infants and toddlers speak, which also shares common ground with aphasic disorders. These fields also serve as important metaphors, either as the shape of the first human experience and instinct, or as an open wound, pointing again to the same place.
The little child speaks an infinite idiom, which will soon forget for the sake of integration in society. An “infantile amnesia” takes place, which, not only relates to the child's forgetting their primary language, but also to the loss of access to their infinite sound world. As Daniel Heller-Roazen writes, “the loss of a limitless phonetic arsenal is the price a child must pay for the papers that grant them citizenship in the community of a single tongue”.
At least some of this paper’s main questions are rhetorical, or allegoric. The “backward steps”, also represented in the main diagram of this paper, share some common ground with the psychoanalytic process.
The questions do not deny the acquisition of knowledge, systematization, or any possible organization of the material, no matter how strict these can be. They simply indicate that, the deeper the roots of both the material and the process itself, the more effective and penetrating the outcome may be. There is always the danger of creating lists of technical tricks and techniques, without actual meaning. The questions provoke thought on how each creator's development could breathe an air of authenticity. It is a quest towards becoming “lighter”, more playful and less critical, under the umbrella of “emotional openness”.