I think the whole "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"
quote has long been misinterpreted. Most people seem to take it to mean
that writing about music is a category error -- you can't describe it
successfully so why try.
I think what it can also mean is this: you can take one form of human
expression and re-interpret it in another, and the translation or
mis-translation from one media to another can make for interesting art.
Both Stewart Walker and Richie Hawtin have talked about making music
that is a response to and a meditation on pieces of sculpture they
particularly like.
When it comes to writing about music, it's something I do a lot, so I think
that it can be done. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. You can describe in words
the technical details of music -- instruments, timbres, rhythms. You can
describe the context in which the music is valid. And you can use metaphor
to describe it's effect on the listener. So it's a completely valid, and
valuable endeavor.
And since we're on a mailing list where we natter away endlessly on the
subject, it's ultimately absurd to bring up that quote ...
kent williams -- kent@avalon.net
http://www.cornwarning.com -- Iowa's First Techno Record Label
http://www.mp3.com/chaircrusher -- tunes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org