Re: Virtual Concerto


Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 19:42:13 EDT


If there is no objective reality to musical excellence, then there is no
reason why garbage lids banging can't as easily evoke the raptures critics
gush over (fill in their favorite works of their favorite composers here).

If there is no place for subjective interpretation, then the first time
someone from (fill in your favorite example of a region of unschooled
barbarity here) hears (fill in your favorite work of your favorite composer
here), they would automatically gush the raptures that you do.

Obviously perception and evaluation of art requires BOTH an objectively real
excellence AND a trained perception. Equally obviously, art is more
subjective than science. Perhaps the first part of the argument here could
be filled in a bit to actually prove that it does have an objective
component.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Austin" <kevin.austin@videotron.ca>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Cc: "Eliot Handelman" <eliot@generation.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto

> At 11:31 AM -0400 5/19/04, Eliot Handelman wrote:
> >You were asking about "human agency." By saying "melody" we're setting up
> >some sort of expectation in that area, which doesn't come into play if
> >we're going to talk about jumbled collections of notes.
>
> I have met many people to whom the Carter First String Quartet is a
> jumbled collection of notes. Is the jumbled collection (or melodic)
> aspect a function of the 'notes', or the listener's ability to
> perceive / organize the stimulus?
>
>
>
> >Only in reality.
>
> Wheh! What a relief.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:01 EST