179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Adam Piontek
To:
Iffy Decision-Makers
Date:
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:02:51 -0500
Subject:
[idm] progression vs. evolution
Msg-Id:
<200101272059.MAA24955@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Mbox:
idm.0101.gz
[warning - semantic nit-picking ahead:] It really bugs me when people refer to music "progressing." Music does not "progress." The word progression implies forward change towards something. It implies improvement and direction. One might say an artist improves in their control of their medium, so I suppose an artist can progress, but musical styles do not progress. They evolve. It's just my personal problem, I suppose, but I really wish people would start saying that music evolves, because that's all it really does. Music changes over time as ideas and techniques interact and clash, just like biological organisms change over time as our genes interact. So, the act of creating a piece of music is a lot like sex. There is no goal towards which music progresses, and no existing "genre" or "species" is perfect, or even has a perfect representative. Genres and species are only human categorical ideas meant to help describe a set of similar things. In reality, it's all different. Yes, I know we all know this. Sorry for bothering. I just wanted to say this about progression because it's one of those terms I feel is used incorrectly a lot, and that reinforces its incorrect use. [ok, i'm done now] -adam np: Gimmik - Slow Motion Process -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org