Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: "Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:57:32 GMT
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4332d244$0$11063$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Steve Latham wrote:
>
>> I think I'm making some headway here, at least for myself.
>>
>> Let's take water:
>>
>> Molecularly, or, Elementally, it's H2O.
>>
>> Now water is water, but we use a whole bunch of descriptors to describe
>> the way in which water occurs:
>>
>> Ocean, Lake, Raindrop, Puddle, Pool, Dew, etc. When it is falling from
>> the sky in droplets we call it rain (or droplets/raindrops, and the act
>> of them all falling together is rain). When flowing we call it a River
>> (and use further descriptors to talk about thing like an estuarine river,
>> or rapids, etc.) When sitting in one place, we call it a "body" of water
>> and modify descriptors based on size - puddle, pool, lake, sea, ocean,
>> etc. All of these things contain water, but we describe them to make a
>> distinction between water in a droplet, versus water in a vessel.
>>
>> I think we obviously describe music in this latter form - for instance,
>> we could have pitched and unpitched music, and then we could have
>> sub-categories like tonal, atonal, modal, centric, and so on for pitched
>> music.
>>
>> What I'm grappling with is, is there an elemental form of music? Or is
>> "sound" the elemental physical property, and "music" a category down.
>>
>> Elementally, sound is acoustic vibrations.
>>
>> Then we use words like "pitched sound" "unpitched sound" and "noise" to
>> further describe sound (i.e the ways in which sound occurs in the world)
>>
>> On the next level we might describe "music", "speech" and so on which is
>> they way we USE those thing on the level above.
>>
>> Does that seem reasonable,
>
>
> Sure
>
>
>> and does the analogy make sense?
>
>
> I'm a bit skeptical. When we talk about collections of water molecules, we
> don't usually have to talk about interpretation issues.
Agreed.
When we're talking about
> music, we usually have to talk about interpretation issues.
Understood. But when we talk about is it a stream, a creek, or a river, we
do. Water is the elemental level. So is Sound. That's why my original
definition started there. There's no interpretation in the definition of
sound. Music must start there, and be described within that category. It's
not light, it's Sound (OK, we could say sound and light are both types of
energy, and I believe the Universe is Matter and Energy (I'm no scientist
though).
So
Universe consists or matter and energy.
Granite is a type of Matter (we must concede that energy bonds the
molecules together though), Sound is one type of energy (we must concede
that it needs matter in which to travel though)
Sculpture is a specific type of matter (an artistic presentation of
matter). Music is a specific type of sound (an artistic presentation of
sound).
But not all matter is sculpture, and not all sound is music. To define
those, we need something unique about the form. Sculpture is a type of
matter. It has been carved? Not true, it could be assembled. Assembly can be
used for non sculpture. So those are not unique enough in themselves to
define Sculpture. What is?
My argument is that Artistic Intent is it.
But "
>
> Does a performance of, to take one completely random example, 4'33"
:-)
constitute
> music or not? Some say it does, some say it doesn't, and I don't think
> that clearing up the terminology will change this basic fact. (Rather more
> likely, people will want to change the terminology to either make 4'33"
> music or to make it not music).
No. I think it is music (categorized). Just a specific type. It may be a
type that includes theatrical aspects, philosophical aspects, and/or
perception aspects, so it would either be "that type" of category, or a
hybrid category. But here's the other perspective: If it's not music, then
what is it? It's not "nothing". Maybe it's simply "art", but I would include
"Art" in a category even above Music (i.e. music is a type of art form, so
is sculpture - but the Cage is not sculpture). So while the Cage might not
be music per-se, it might be under a heading of Performance Art, which is
defined as an art form the combines other forms, such a dance and music
(Ballet), Music and Horny Divas (Opera - being silly here of course) - in
either of those cases I think the music can and may play a subservient role,
but, the music part is still music. So 4'33" might not be "Music", but it is
an art form with a musical component. A not so obvious one to many, but it
is there.
Then we we get into defining art, that's where initial intent comes in. A
human intends it to be a warning signal (communicates an idea), or music, or
a sculpture. Then we define from there. But without the human's intention,
it's simply energy or matter, or lack thereof.
Steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Samuel Vriezen
- Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- References:
- OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Samuel Vriezen
- OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- Prev by Date: Re: We are in Wonderland! - through the looking glass actually but what's in a name - Re: Definition of Music
- Next by Date: Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- Previous by thread: Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- Next by thread: Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|