Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: "Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:48:06 GMT
"Lookingglass" <Shemakhan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DKWdnVQFh_ipgK7eRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> But sound only carries the information that we then interpret as music, it
> is NOT Music.
Here's the problem with that. All sounds carry information we interpret as
whatever. What makes the sound we hear as music different from random noise.
it was inteded to be music before it came out into physical space. The other
side of the coin is that EVERYTHING is this way. We interpret everything.
And we can only interpret based on our previous experience.
The first person to make music made some sounds that no one had heard
before. Someone says "what was that, I've never heard anything like it
before". Creator says I call it music. Then, anything after that that sounds
similar is music, but people who haven't heard it yet will not know what it
is until they are told. We would not know what music was if we had never
heard any (unlikely of course), but it wouldn't cease to exist.
I pointed out in an earlier post that you do not "hear" sound
> in your head (without external stimuli). Perhaps "construct" music in your
> head is a better phrase.
Yes, I'd agree.
If Rubenstein constructed the Music in his head and
> was able to interpret that as Music (he constructed his right hand playing
> the bass clef and his left hand playing the treble clef, and then
> constructed the Music in his head) there you go... and having never heard
> the piece before, he was able to distinguish it from the millions
> (billions?) of pieces of Music already written, he was not dealing with
> his memory of it... beyond his memory of the position of the notes on a
> staff.
Right. A memory of pitches, but not music. That's no different than reading
about an apple, or seeing a picture of one. They are not apples, only the
information that is expected to be understood as an apple. The word was used
to illicit the sensory memory in the reader of what an apple is. The reader
can imagine the feel, sight, taste, smell, and even the sound of crunching
into the apple. Those are indeed very powerful stimuli, but, they are not
the apple. They are not food. The apple is a "figment of your imagination".
So it is with music.
>
> MUSIC is interpreted in each one of us as we choose...
Interpreted is different than "is" though.
period. If there is a
> consensus of the majority, then for all intents and purposes, it is Music.
There was a consensus of the majority that the Earth was flat. Is it? There
was a consensus of the majority that thought there were only 5 planets. Are
there? Those are physical facts, but, there was a consensus of the majority
that "separate but equal" was ok, is it? (that one's a concept).
Steve.
.
- References:
- OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Steve Latham
- Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Lookingglass
- Re: OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- From: Steve Latham
- OK, I think I'm on to something now.
- Prev by Date: 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
|