David Stewart replies to a mixture of Len Fehskens and myself:

>This issue does not crop up if taken from the point of view of
>purposivity.  If someone put sounds together then it is music.  Useful
>word.  Simply understood word.  Better world.

Perhaps we need to consider what the purpose is.  If I put sounds together
with the purpose of making a thoroughly unpleasant noise with which to
annoy my neighbours after they kept me up all night with a party nextdoor,
is that *necessarily* music? If I make a tape with the purpose of
cataloguing my collection of pneumatic drills in action, is that music?
I suggest that having *any* purpose in putting sounds together is not
sufficient to qualify the result as music.  Some purposes qualify, others
don't.

I admire and sympathise with David's quest for simplicity.  I'm just a bit
more cynical about the likelihood of achieving it.

>Why does music itself have to be about communication.

Music is not about communication. It is communication (IMO of course - Len
can and possibly will speak for himself!)

>It can be simply about the experience - or not.

But if an experience is constructed by one human being and assimilated by
another, then something has passed from one consciousness to the other.  I
don't see how that can be avoided.  Communication is not an optional add-on
extra that you can have at some times and not at others.  It's integral to
the nature of all art, not just music.

>Why make that distinction? It complicates my definition.  I demand
>simplicity.

And I'm trying hard to reach it. The closer you get, the more slippery it
becomes.

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]