Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 25 May 1999 18:30:57 PDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Leighton Gill wrote:
>Conversely, I could argue that you must have some definition of music
>that justifies your conclusion that Stockhausen's works ARE music.
I do, and I posted it many days ago under this very same thread. Doesn't
anybody around here read what I write?
>One comes from Mozart, who declared that a fundamental rule of music is
>that it should never offend the ear.
Was that the "collective" ear or the "individual" ear? It makes a big
difference. If it's the individual ear, then concerning this criterion,
Mozart is saying that each individual determines what music is. I always
knew Mozart had insight.
Leighton concluded that it is impossible to verbally define music; I don't
feel like arguing about this - defining music won't help it sound any
better.
>I had a really bad case of gastroenteritis in the late 60's. I
>still remember it, but that doesn't make it music.
That's gross! I'm very thankful Leighton can't transfer his memories to
me. It could be that when a thread veers toward the stomach, it's time to
move on (or down).
Don Satz
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|