A crucial aspect of this analysis revolves around Acosta’s nuanced relationship with the title and its political implications. He firmly asserts that the piece is not a mere “social justice” work in an instrumental sense. He explicitly states, “No revive a los asesinados, no castiga a los culpables… entonces, no, nada.” (It doesn’t revive the murdered, it doesn’t punish the guilty… so, no, nothing.) Acosta even expresses a degree of regret over the title, admitting, “casi me arrepiento… de haber puesto este título,” fearing it leads to a banalization and a literal, “opportunistic” interpretation of the music, as if certain moments directly represent gunfire or screams.
This ambivalence, rather than being a weakness, serves as a strength of the relational or ‘non-modern’ reading. It reinforces the argument that the work’s political power lies not in a mere mimetic representation of violence but in its structural opposition to the hierarchies that enabled such violence. Acosta himself draws this distinction, labeling the “false positives” context as “anecdotal” and emphasizing that the true conceptual work lies in the renegotiation of power and the fostering of ethical relations. The title, therefore, functions as what he calls a “receptáculo para parte de ese llanto” (a receptacle for part of that mourning)—a personal, civic gesture of grief that exists alongside, but is not identical to the musical structure. This complexity challenges simplistic, propagandistic interpretations of political art, elevating the piece to a more profound meditation on the very conditions of politics itself.