Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Matthias said, <Music is intentional noise? ,<snip, edit> <How would we differentiate speech from this? Some good questions, but I think we have to avoid the temptation to feel compelled to define *Music*-- [I guess I’d defend saying that it is; *arranged sounds-of-varying-pitch*]. But spoken poetry is also arranged/intentional sound, with elements of pitch if you- - - But you see the problem. Any clever person could find a word to take issue with- and the REALITY is, we all know, very well, what music is. What poetry is. What speech is. I’m always happy to define- but I don’t want to deconstruct, and separate a thing into elements, just to say, *Aha, there is nothing here!* <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? I’d buy that. There is a distinction there. But I’d rather err on the generous side: I wouldn’t rule the whale/bird/wolf-hound thing out. <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. Barking is simply *non-intention* [and we could see *non* as *bad*, in that it's the *absence-of-*good*] to make music. I just wanted to differentiate *good* intention from plain *intention* though. Not make a judgement on the *value* of the intention [for now] [But I see your point]. Like I said, I can beat a log with my ax handle to secure the head on it. That’s an intention. But when I notice the different tones [pitch variations] in the soft and hard pulp, the hollow and solid parts, and I begin to bang in a certain way to hear those variations, then I called that a *good* intention. But really, I only meant *good* as a catch-all word to catch all the possible *constructive* qualifiers of *intention*. And my desire [ahem: intention/wish/aim/purpose/will] was to suggest that it is silly to pretend that *good* and *bad* are only relative constructs. We all know better, but we’ve broken it all down too far. Simply to use the word *good* is to get 10 responses informing me that *good* doesn’t exist. Okay. Good. <*What would bad intentions sound like*? By my [last post’s] definition, that would just mean that someone had *no good intentions*. One couldn’t *plan* to have bad intentions, by that definition—because the planning is what shifts it to a good intention; or: one can’t *plan* not to use his plan. The word, *desire* could have easily replaced *good intention*- because it’s an intention with an positive aim [*positive*, as in, *acquiring or creating something that was not yet acquired/created]. Obviously I’m in danger of again reducing it too far. One would never talk about making music with *bad intentions*. But it’s fun. What is intentional chaos??? [It’s not chaos anymore, right?]. [NWA, Atonal, Serial, Industrial Musik. There. I mentioned them first] <I also like Dennis reasoning that the intention of the listener is <important…<snip> <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? I wouldn’t say that Dennis’s wind-chimes aren’t music to him. My children’s laughter is music to me. But I do not forget that those are metaphors. It's poetic comparison. It's NOT composing music with our ears and brain. === Subtle, but the difference between a world that thinks art/communication requires some effort/disciplined understanding/refined sensitivity- and a world that thinks ALL expression/phenomena is of absolute equal value. The tyranny of the relativists. One really has to choose which he thinks came first; the song or the creating of the song. Something must come first. It’s just like consciousness and existence. Some take apart some elements of existence [that they notice] and say, *I see through this!* [fairly easy to do with time/space/meaning]. They go on doing this until they reach the conclusion [mathematically provable] that *everything equals nothing*. Okay. Good. And beyond that? Once you’ve seen through everything? What do you see? Nothing? And beyond that? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.