Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:55:07 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.
>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.
>I don't understand. It is connected to the individual.
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.
>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?
>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.
>By implication, are you suggesting that intelligence must be behind the
>creation of the sound?
Yes. The organisation of it.
>If so...I believe there is intelligence behind birdsong...maybe a that
>of a "bird brain"...but some intelligence. (yes I realize that birds have
>fairly large brains relative to their size...just a mild attempt at humor
>on my part).
This is too complex a subject to go into thoroughly in this forum. My
view is that although some animal sounds may be "musicAL" in that they
demonstrate some of the qualities associated with music, they are not music
in and of themselves, not in either an intraspecific or an interspecific
sense. I accept that some notable authorities take a different view.
>>[Thanks, Ian, I couldn't have asked for a better defense of my position
>>than your verbose disagreement. -Dave]
>
>What bothers me most about Dave's comment is that I find myself agreeing
>with it.
Then perhaps you could help me understand it.
>[And when I and Karl agree about anything: WATCH OUT! -Dave]
Panic, panic.
Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|