Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:49:56 -0500 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Bill Pirkle:
>we need a generally accepted definition of music. Else we are sure to
>argue since I am talking about apples and someone else is talking about
>oranges. I will restate my latest offering simply to make my next point
>and not in the sense of pushing for its acceptance.
>
>"Music is series of sound effects which are organized by the composer
>so as to control the evocation of emotions or feelings in the mind
>of the listener or to demonstrate a principle(s) of harmony, melody,
>rhythm or form"
Definitions are of the most limited value when the object of the
enterprise is to probe deeply. This one seems arbitrary and not
particularly convincing, but I am not sure that it is any more or less
convincing than any other, with the exception of Dave Lampson's more
or less anything goes definition. What can your definition exclude? I
just finished a Concerto for stamped foot and finger-nail scraped along
blackboard. It certainly is a sound effect and it certainly evokes rather
strong feelings.
Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University
|
|
|