] [Thread Prev
Now how would one prove that formal logic has any objective truth
what's assigned to it? I'm inclined to the sort of view at the core of
bhuddism, ( and at least implied by Korzybski,Whorf
Bohm,Kuhn,Goedel,Bohr,etc.)that subject/object is a mental construction, a
useful tool for sorting through sense impressions and 'data',but a source
of illusion if treated as being fundamental.
I see desire is a key element in aesthetics,if I had a headache and
want to sleep the funkiest New Orleans parade band could be a serious
bummer,but if I want to feel excited and joyous, loose and rowdy,what
be better? When I played a lot of dance music I observed that the bands
that made people really give it up and raise a sweat dancing were feeling
the rhythm ,and energy of the room,and working with it like someone
with a partner.
Some instruments mimic human voice,and players that work that connection
can elicit emotional responses. As do melodic phrases that mimic speech.
Those of us who are just fascinated,obsessed with sound,can respond to
things others don't notice,so I would say one approach to good composition
is effectivey working with the attention of the listener,providing
familiar that gives a frame of reference,and then contrasting that with
something new,that is delightful or profound,or whatever. Since nerve
endings only register difference,too much of the same stimulus can stop
registering at all,hence the sensory isolation tanks,and various trance
music traditions can cause people to not register their physical
surroundings. So working with contrast tends to keep the music in the
of attention. Melody ,melodic phrasing ,ancd certain types of "rhytmic
driving" affect brain wave freq.s and can cause the brain halves to
entrain,functioning in a more or less balanced way.
Music that engages listeners and takes them out of their habitual thought
patterns,so that they forget their troubles and lay down their
often bring them back for more.The blues among other forms,is rooted in
approach,though some players don't understand that-or care maybe.
Personally I like really wierd stuff,but I know that some kinds really
weird stuff can sometimes be put across to listeners that aren't
by making it groove.
To judge a piece,of any art form,I try to look at the intent of the
artist,and wether they use their materials well ,effectively, in pursuing
that intent. There are artists who are very skillful at the craft aspects
that don't speak to me.A lot of Mozart ,esp. earlier stuff ,sounds like
fluff to me,but it seems to reflects the emotional orientation of the
audience he was writing for,upper crust germans in the days when men wore
powdered wigs.I recognize that his stuff is well crafted.
Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for