Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:34:35 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
David Stewart replies to a mixture of Len Fehskens and myself:
>This issue does not crop up if taken from the point of view of
>purposivity. If someone put sounds together then it is music. Useful
>word. Simply understood word. Better world.
Perhaps we need to consider what the purpose is. If I put sounds together
with the purpose of making a thoroughly unpleasant noise with which to
annoy my neighbours after they kept me up all night with a party nextdoor,
is that *necessarily* music? If I make a tape with the purpose of
cataloguing my collection of pneumatic drills in action, is that music?
I suggest that having *any* purpose in putting sounds together is not
sufficient to qualify the result as music. Some purposes qualify, others
don't.
I admire and sympathise with David's quest for simplicity. I'm just a bit
more cynical about the likelihood of achieving it.
>Why does music itself have to be about communication.
Music is not about communication. It is communication (IMO of course - Len
can and possibly will speak for himself!)
>It can be simply about the experience - or not.
But if an experience is constructed by one human being and assimilated by
another, then something has passed from one consciousness to the other. I
don't see how that can be avoided. Communication is not an optional add-on
extra that you can have at some times and not at others. It's integral to
the nature of all art, not just music.
>Why make that distinction? It complicates my definition. I demand
>simplicity.
And I'm trying hard to reach it. The closer you get, the more slippery it
becomes.
Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|