I used to believe in the idea that choice of medium is the most urgent aspect of art. Meaning to say, each element of your work should be there for a reason, should be justified, and should contribute to organic unity and to the whole being greater than its parts.
(The best way for me to test this was to remove or distort a particular element of a work, and examine how the meaning of the whole changes, or worse, erodes.)
As a self-proclaimed songwriter, poet, essayist, and writer-in-general (not a fictionist though) I devised this medium-focused approach in order to justify why I had to write words to my music, or why I had to write words at all. (Or, why I had to set my words to music, and consequently why I had to write music at all.)
The intersection of textual and auditory is implicit (or is it? What about the deaf/hearing-impaired community?); as such the categorization/compartmentalization of these two senses is no longer as safisfying nor as productive as it was two or three years ago.
I'd like to think there's something I've outgrown (because growth implies progress) rather than exhausted in my previous theories. In any case, it seems that something has been lost. Or was found to be non-existent.
Perhaps my life's work is one continuous text which explores the aforementioned "textual-auditory intersection", rather than an accumulation of unmusical songs/unsong-y music. Perhaps all text is song (and music; hopefully this String Theory approach will prove fruitful).
Currently reading: From Work To Text - Barthes