Ian Crisp wrote:
>Karl Miller:
>
>>How does one establish that something is ugly. Must it be that nobody
>>finds it beautiful.
>
>If the definition of beautiful is a circular one along the lines of
>"anything that someone appreciates as beautiful", then yes. Karl's
>reductio ad absurdum makes my own argument that this type of definition
>is inadequate and useless. The point is that we need definitions that
>assist making and clarifying these distinctions, not ones that avoid them.
Why do you find this notion absurd?
At any rate, I would suggest that we need words that offer definitions
that can clarify distinctions.
>>For me, music is a quality of sound.
>
>OK, fine. Now define for me what that quality is and how it differs from
>non-musical sound.
It is in the ears of the beholder. Sound also has amplitude and frequency.
>A definition that is connected *only* to an individual has meaning only
>for that individual. That may satisfy you and Dave but it doesn't satisfy
>me. There may be an unbridgeable gap here.
Probably so. But I wonder why you need take a different tact. I am
reminded of Varese who, I would guess frustrated over people not calling
his works music, called them organized sound...forget the notion of beauty
vs ugly.
>>One of the many reasons I prefer music of words...consider the often heard
>>phrase "...is music to my ears." While the origin of that phrase may have
>>been the sound of a cash register (in the olden days, cash registers were
>>mechanical and often had a ringing sound), it is often applied to other
>>things.
>
>Now I'm the one who doesn't understand. What's the point here?
If one ascribes some meaning by usage, "music" can mean mean many things.
>>I would assume you would exclude "sound text pieces?"
>
>Why? Only if they consist of nothing but "plain speech" as in everyday
>spoken communication, and no further layers or types of organisation.
"What you are saying is music to my ears."
>>By implication, are you suggesting that intelligence must be behind the
>>creation of the sound?
>
>Yes. The organisation of it.
At the act of the creation of the sound? One could argue that there is some
"Godly" intelligence behind all sound. Yet, if not, our own intelligence
and a listener could easily create in our own minds some organization to
any sound. I believe that is part of psychological make up as humans.
>>[And when I and Karl agree about anything: WATCH OUT! -Dave]
>
>Panic, panic.
It goes back many years...to the days of an unmoderated list. We would
often disagree in the extreme. I will add, that those exchanges opened
my mind to some very different ways of thinking about music...or whatever
one wants to call it. Likewise this recent exchange has been, for me,
amongst the most interesting. It has explained a perspective I have never
understood. Yet I believe that I am beginning to get some insight...even
if I don't agree. But I believe that the disagreement comes more from use
of language than anything else. It could be that there is some continuum
of sound, relative to the quantity of intelligence behind it. For some,
that "organization" or whatever has to be farther along that continuum than
it has to be for others, if the sound is to be considered music. Yet I
find it curious, that on the other hand, there are those who label some
music as being "intellectual" versus "emotional," finding intellectual
music to be less worthy of their attention.
Karl
|