I think it was Miles Davis who said music was like food, eat the stuff you like, leave the stuff you don't.
But in direct response to what you wrote, I believe there are some people who are more interested in the ideas behind the music, than the actual sounds produced; the sounds produced are almost a souvenir of the idea. It's not my approach, but who am I to say others should not look at things that way?
Dom
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:Ok, let's say I follow all the links posted on a mailing-list, and all I find are tracks in which I want to fast-forward through the seemingly randomly-arranged noises until I get to the beginning of the «real stuff», and eventually I can't fast-forward anymore because I'm already at the end. What do you call this ? When is one allowed to generalise ?
There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized, so I find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general fashion.
(btw obviously I'm not talking about pd-list !)Depends on the level on which you expect to define it. You'd have more chances if you try to define it on a sociological/psychological level.
Can we even define what music is?
That's usually called beauty, ugliness and æsthetics, though otoh lyrics could be subjected to the same judgements of morality as books do.
I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or
should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong
in music, that is a sort of morality.
What do you mean by rational ?
In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints can be restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone else, that is a way to get organized?
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list