EggyToast <youn0394@umn.edu> writes:
: music has to have a purpose.
Says who? And even if it does, why does the "purpose" need to be
external to the listener? If I listen to the ambient sounds around
me and mentally organize them into music, who are you to say that
what I'm listening to isn't music?
Traditionally, non-improvisational music has been a three-part affair.
There is a composer, a player -- and a listener. Electronic music
eliminates the player, while improvisational music eliminates the
composer. The one constant is the listener, and I would argue that
you can eliminate both of the others and still have music.
So even if we accept that music need have purpose, why does that purpose
need to be external to the listener? Claiming otherwise leans toward
the simplistic argument that music is some sort of (universal?) language,
a view discredited on neurophysiological grounds (music and language
use different parts of the brain) as well as philosophically suspect.
That said, there are such a multitude of ways to define music, from
mental states to physical acts, from social events to abstract
philosophy, that it is quite impossible to come up with a definition
of just what music *isn't*, since it *is* so many things.
"Which is more musical: a truck passing by a factory or a
truck passing by a music school?"
-- John Cage
Cheers,
-Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org