Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:07:53 -0300 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Donald Satz (on a limited definition of music):
>My view (the individual decides) does have inherent limits. I assume
>that there's not a person on Earth who considers all sounds from all
>sources to constitute music. If that's the case, then each person has
>"limits". They just aren't group created or controlled limits. Can you
>live with that? And if you can't, just which group are you going to adhere
>to?
To the Holy Brotherhood of Anti-Definers, of course. Next weekend, we
are going to prepare a great orgy in our club house, but surely it will
be disastrous because no member agrees on what an "orgy" actually is.
Seriously: an "individual definition" of anything is almost an oxymoron.
You are free to think what you want about music, but your "personal limits"
are not enough to hold a true and universal concept of it. A "definition
of music" sounds pedantic, unless based on the humble pillars of
craftmanship: "the art of combining sounds in time" etc. This kind
of concepts are unsatisfactory, all we know, but at least they have no
pretensions. What do you want (not you, Donald, but many listmemebers)?,
a total and comprehensive definition?. In my opinion, that's impossible
and useless.
>I have my doubts that the "highest court in the land" in a country
>will be struggling with this issue any time soon.
Don't give them ideas...
Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|