[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] |-| Re: // techniques ]]



ok i am going to bow out from this discussion, but not without a couple jabs
at michal's response to wrong john silver.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michal Seta" <mis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Unfortunately in a lot of music considered "experimental" I don't hear
anything new,
> progressive.  Call it mutation or evolution.  However, if it's at least
musical
> (whatever that means) i will sit through it and eventually enjoy it.

i think this points out one of the flaws of mainstream theoretical analysis.
it influences its practicioners to the extent that they would pre-judge
music that doesn't satisfy its criteria, effectively ignoring any qualities
or value said music might have.

you say "if it is at least musical" .. meaning here if it fits into your
standards of music, that you will "eventually enjoy it" ... what you are
saying is this: there is only one factor, does it fit my pre-determined
definition of music? does it agree with my belief system? "musicality" ..
ohhh worship worship....

>     The third class is that which acquires the ability for judging, so
that it can
> carefully weigh rhythms and melodies and the composition as whole.  This
class, since
> it is totally grounded in reason and thought, will rightly be esteemed as
musical.

this person would make a great musicoligist, documentarian, college
professor. and they might be "musical" .. but as you may have guessed being
"musical" isn't tops on the creative priority list.

-jonah