Bill Pirkle at [log in to unmask] wrote:

>Having followed this thread I come away amazed that music is felt to be
>so indefinite and abstract that it is indefinable.  How is it taught
>(composition)?.  How can books be written about it? Let's try this
>definition.
>
>Music is series of sound effects which are organized by the composer so
>as to control the evokation of emotions or feelings in the mind of the
>listener or to demonstrate a principle(s) of harmony, melody, rhythm or
>form.
>
>This definition would include bird calls.

Gets an F grade from this composer.

The consumerism of the late 20th century is much in evidence here.

"Music is what we consume - therefore it is sound."

A series of sounds may be interpretted as music, sounds which are
organised in particular ways may be thought of as "music" or musical.
But as an abstract defintion, this does not work.  It is possible to sit
down and write a fugue not having the faintest idea how it is going to
sound, or what series of effects will come out, simply by taking a theme
with suitably calculated entrances and reapplying the theme according to
the rules.

Result: a fugue, perhaps good, probably not so good, but certainly music.

Then there is the intentionality problem - how did Wagner intend Siegfried
to sound? We aren't sure - we have some ideas based on tradition and his
own statements, but in the end, we can't tell if there was *one* particular
sound that he intended for various sections.  That's the rub you see -
there are many works of music which can result in several quite different
sonic landscapes - why we bother performing things more than once.  If
music were simply the composer arranging sounds in a particular order -
we'd all be listening to synthesised music exclusively, because that is
the only way to translate one set of symbols into one and only one result.

- - -

The question of principles again puts things in reverse - it is as wrong
headed as Aristotle's belief that he could take a set of assumptions
and determine the shape of the cosmos.  He had as one principle that the
heavans were more perfect than the earth, as another that circles were
the perfect form.  Therefore the moon was a perfect sphere, and everything
moved in circles.  Since gravity was the desire of each object to return to
its creation, the universe revolved around the earth.

What we formulate as "principles" are post-hoc exersizes.  It isn't that
music is abstract, it is that discussing definitions of it with people who
are bent on making music=sound is basically pointless.

Stirling Newberry
http://www.mp3.com/ssn
[log in to unmask]