Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

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

RE: "Repetition defines music"


I took away from the article that even if one defines music in the loosest of terms, any sound, musical or not, is already some sort of repetition if only on the micro level. 


Which then leads us to the question, what is sufficient or necessary to define music? ;-)



From: Kris Hartung [mailto:krispen.hartung@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:28 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: "Repetition defines music"


I’m so behind on this thread, but the whole title makes me want to vomit.  What’s the basis for forwarding such absolutist based questions or statements? Have we not learned anything about the history and philosophy of art? Since when can art be confined and constrained by absolutist principles?  Seems to me that repetition is neither sufficient nor necessary in defining music.