Subject: RE: Virtual Concerto
From: Kevin Austin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 06:17:15 EDT
At 1:57 PM -0500 5/19/04, Michael Rempel wrote:
>But then is it music if it is not heard, or can not be heard? If it
>is heard does that mere fact not imply human agency?
For me, hearing is not necessarily about sound, but requires human
agency. The perceptual organization is different for everyone -- the
organization is not in the object (or the frame), but is in the mind.
>Another question... is a message or some kind of intent essential to music?
Does one attribute 'intention' to the taste of food? the rainbow? the
sunset? Is the three-day old child aware of 'intention'? If not at
what stage / age does the child develop this sense? And for the child
who does not develop the sense of "intention", the world is a
difficult place. In extreme cases, they are unable to "read" social
signals or make appropriate signals themself.
>Does it have to 'go some where' or 'do something' identifiable to be music?
IMV, it is not the 'object' that does this, it is the organization of
the individual's perception.
>We have talked about self-referential integrity as a requirement.
>How far can you stretch the point?
The human mind (in today's understanding) seeks patterns, even if
they are not placed there by 'intent'. In some cases
'self-referential integrity' is an important aspect of the identity
(perceptual organization) of the object. And the depth of the
identity is (in my experience) closely related to the number of
associations that the object implies for the receiver.
An example? Think D Major.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:01 EST