----- "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika(a)yahoo.com> a écrit :
> --- On Wed, 2/2/11, patko <colet.patrice(a)free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > no one would be actually ridiculous by generating music
> > with brain (Can you say that about chicken dance?).
> 
> I chose the example of the Chicken Dance exactly because it is
> ridiculous, so I agree with you, but fail to see the relevance.
> 
This figure of style just make me thinking about homer simpson's brain activity
always having a chicken dancing somewhere in the mind...
> Also-- what do you mean by point of view?  If you mean a visualization
> of the activity, I suppose I could also say a dancer can imagine their
> own Chicken Dance in kinesthetic terms, quite separate from any
> sound or image.
>
 Seriously, music is easier to share with most people than galliformes choregraphy. 
 
> >
> >  Tools have been developped to reproduce this music for
> > sharing a projection around a consensus that is different
> > following different social groups. We're just trying not to
> > be alone.
> 
> What do you mean when you say "this music"?
This music that comes first from the mind.
> >  Also there is not idea *behind* music, music *is* the
> > idea.
> 
> It depends on how you define "idea behind music".
> 
> I believe matju means the process that led to music getting produced,
> or written, or whatever.  In that case the idea is not the music.
> 
The idea that lead someone to produce music could lead anyone to anything else,
like chicken dance for example.
-- 
Patrice Colet