Re: Definition of Music

In article <dhf7t9$ciq$1$8302bc10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Webber <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:433afe98$0$11075$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> I often want to avoid the word 'subjective' as it is often used
>> colloquially (i.e. 'arbitrary'); that's why I tend to bring in
>> 'values'.
>
>'Subjective' is well defined, and is precisely the right word here.
>It means precisely that the definition of music depends on the
>listener and not on the music itself (which in Matt's definition
>doesn't even exist).

Do you deny the existence of perceptions, and thereby deduce the
non-existence of music by my definition? What ARE you talking about here?

> 'Value' could be a whole load of different
>things.



>> The good thing about Matt's "definition" - as far as it is any -
>> is that it expresses that what music is depends on what people
>> want, need, or recognize it to be. This is good, because there
>> simply is no music outside of what people want, need, or recognize
>> it to be; and that which people want, need, or recognize has not
>> in the past couple of millenia tended to be unambiguous.
>
>No. There is plenty. Someone mentioned britney Spears - nothing I
>want, recognise (in any value sense) or need - but i won't deny it
>is music.

I will. It's not music. It's a titty show. Prove me wrong!

>> Therefore, any 'objective' (a word often used for 'prescriptive'
>> or 'exhaustive' or 'controllable' or 'either with us or against
>> us') definition is, I think, completely wrong.
>
>Bringing up silly definitions of words doesn't really help. I am
>stsrting to feel deliberately misinterpreted again. 'Objective' is
>pertaining to the object under discussion - music. An objective
>definition is one people can agree upon ; subjective definition is
>an aggreement that everyone's mutually contradictory definitions are
>all equally valid - ie no definition at all.

Not at all. It sounds to me like you really do deny the existence
of perceptions.

>An objective definition need not be perfect, but at least it is
>something to get to grips with.

And it needn't define the referent of a word as an artifact. Lots of
words refer to processes. My definition is of a process, and sounds
which might or might not be granular, melodious, or overwhelming are
just components of that process, and not even the most important
component of the process. My definition includes people, who are the
most important component of the process.


--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition of Music
    ... >> Do you deny the existence of perceptions, ... It sounds to me like you really do deny the existence ... >>>An objective definition need not be perfect, ...
    (rec.music.compose)
  • Re: Definition of Music
    ... >>listener and not on the music itself (which in Matt's definition ... > Do you deny the existence of perceptions, ... It sounds to me like you really do deny the existence ...
    (rec.music.compose)
  • Re: Reductionism denial
    ... While one has to assume the existence of the physical world ... enterprise becomes a fiction about a non-existent ... emotions or emotion-like behavior. ... I'm not asking you to deny physical existence; ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Sueva Orsinis Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
    ... >>>this apart from my statement and contradicting this would be a new level ... > Of course I can deny the existence of your review. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: VPO/Mehta/Bruckner - Bells a Daddy
    ... Christian god as "absolute denial of the existence of god." ... what does it mean to deny the existence of something that the ... Invisible Man upstairs cannot be persuaded by logical reasoning. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
Loading