good intentions [LAST time- unless provoked]

["Robert Eberwein" <robert_eberwein@hotmail.com>]

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.