Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I like these philosophical threads. Its not off topic because looping is based on the cosmic rules we are trying to understand here. It may be overthetopic maybe... Music is intentional noise, is that what you are saying, Robert? I like that. Its somehow obvious but still new to me. How would we differenciate speach from this? Do animals have intentions? I think so. But I would not consider their noises music, would you? Or is it that just some species have the ability? Is that where the *good* intention comes in? Is barking a bad intention and calling a partner a good one? Still, *good* is difficult... So there are no bad intended musicians, they would be noise makers. Could you name examples? Any music is constructive/benevolent/harmonic/cooperative? I also like Dennis reasoning that the intention of the listener is important. But I cannot agree that music only exists if there is a listener... Maybe we could agree that any intention (of the player or listener) is enough to turn noise into music? >>>They know that banging someone with a >>> pipe doesn't become music until you add good intention. >> >Crossover [among others] asks, >>What constitutes "good" intention? > >Okay. > >The thread began with the assertion that all is perception [what >they meant-btw- was *all is perspective*- which is *true*]. It was >hinted that there is no *good* nor *bad*, but thinking makes it so. > >I wanted to play on how *perception* actually works. We *hear* what >we *attend* to--- well, actually, we hear all kinds of things, but >that which we *intentionally* hear is different [we all have >opinions and ideas about this, whether biological, philosophical or >spiritual]. Someone had said that music was *just vibrations of >atoms*. I wanted to suggest that that is about as close as saying, >*an airplane crash is just material, reshaping*. Not if your wife >was on there. And from who's perspective is it *just* re-shaping >material??? > >So... My point [ahem. need coffee]: If, while beating someone with a >pipe, there happen to be noises [vibrations]- - - that doesn't make >it music. If you [or a bystander] notice that the thuds and pops >have a rhythmic quality- - - that still isn't music. But if you >begin to modify your approach, in order to enhance the musical >qualities: then, it's music. Your *intention* had to change [your >perception and perspective can stay the same]. Further, you had to >have a *constructive* [a wish to build, etc] intention. > >[I regret the metaphor. It's one of those, best not elaborated on] > >One can not make music by *accident* [unintentionally]. You can >program a computer [intention]. You can throw bricks at pianos. But >no one ever made music by accident. Not once. At some point the >intention was there. Not only must you have the *intention* to make >music, but it must be constructive/benevolent[with the aim to >communicate with as little static as possible]/harmonic [by any >definition]/cooperative [of the elements/creator/listener]: in other >words: *Good* *Intended*...[as opposed to >chaos/noise/pain/damage/rendering auseinander]. > >Of course this brings into question what makes apperception >different from perception--- what makes attention different from >intention, etc. > >Even I am [almost] smart enough to know that this isn't the place to >speculate further... > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org