D. Stephen Heersink replies to me:
>> I'm afraid this argument does not hold up on examination - you've moved the
>> question "what's music?" to "what is melody or harmony?".
>
>I gave the definition of "music" in the original post. I won't repeat it
>here. As far as what is "melody," I again turn to the American Heritage
>Dictionary:
>
>1. A pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds.
>2. Musical quality: the melody of verse.
>3. Music. a. A rhythmically organized sequence of single tones so
>related to one another as to make up a particular phrase or idea. b.
>Structure with respect to the arrangement of single notes in succession.
>c. The leading part or the air in a harmonic composition.
So either you are citing 3 - in which case your argument is circular or you
are citing 1. In which case the burden is on you to prove that noone is
pleased by the works you claim to be unmusical. Neat trick that, afte all
if you have telepathy - why aren't you out ruling the world or becoming a
trillionaire rather than wasting time with us?
>And, as far as the definition of "harmony," I cite the same source:
>
>a. The study of the structure, progression, and relation of chords.
>b. Simultaneous combination of notes in a chord. c. The structure
>of a work or passage as considered from the point of view of its chordal
>characteristics and relationships. d. A combination of sounds considered
>pleasing to the ear.
See above. If you sense a certain lack of respect for your line of
argument from this end of the conversation - it is because the attempt
to define away that which people don't like is rather hold, and has an
honorable history of being a favored tool of despots and dictators from
time immemorial. You aren't doing the cause of tonal music any particular
credit by engaging in sophistry. Look up my mp3 site, you'll be able to
tell that I'm no all combinatinatorial all the time composer.
It's called "appeal to authority" in logic, and is a fallacy as bad as
"attack against the man".
>Since USE determines MEANING (vide, Wittgenstein, "Philosophical
>Investigations") and since most dictionaries identify and record linguistic
>use in a collection of words, there's hardly any sophistry going on, except
>perhaps for the appeal to Potter Stewart.
This is not correct in the least. At root both of your definitions turn
on the question of what is "pleasing". First, I dispute that the definition
is correct in any useful sense - there are sounds which are not pleasing,
and yet not noise either. This because, in order to know what is
*pleasing* one must first have interpretted it as *music*, and not merely
sound. Just as to know whether a string of words is pleasing, one first
must
>Mr Newberry and others are free to use the language to mean what they
>linguistically and musically.
What followed was a long defense of Potter Stewarte's definition of
pornography "I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it." Mr.
Heersink argues that since the way people use language is language, however
people use language is therefore the meaning and therefore an appeal to
authority and "I know it when I see it" is correct.
Stripped of its verbiage and quotes, it argues that if people don't call
a huricane a storm, then it can't knock houses down, since only winds
associated with storms can do that.
The reply is from art, science and the humanities - namely - there are
forces external to human language, which have effects which cannot be
denied even when their sources are. That therefore when our definitions
produce ridiculous results, and there is no softer word for Heersinks
definition - since if we accept it we must also argue that since Mahler's
music did not please the public in 1899 it wasn't music until later when it
did.
Or perhaps a supporter of Berlioz said it best when Berlioz' works were
accused of "not being music". "Then truly he is an astounding genius - he
has created something new and beautiful with sound, which is none the less
not music!"
Stirling Newberry
http://www.mp3.com/ssn
[log in to unmask]
|
