RE: Virtual Concerto


Subject: RE: Virtual Concerto
From: Michael Rempel (Michael@VIDIR.COM)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 12:05:49 EDT


I personally like Jamaican steel drums. A music derived from banging on the
lids of steel drums left as garbage on the island by the US government I
believe. :-)
 
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Austin [mailto:kevin.austin@videotron.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:12 PM
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Cc: Michael Gogins
Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto

At 7:42 PM -0400 5/20/04, Michael Gogins wrote:

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).

This statement is true.

If there is no place for subjective interpretation

This is the opposite of what I proposed; there is only subjective
interpretation.

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.

This is the opposite of the proposition made. Response to cultural stimulus
is learned. I meet many people who think that tonality is 'natural'.

Obviously

I don't think anything is obvious. Things are learned within cultural
contexts. Do you eat with one hand or two?

(Obviously) perception and evaluation of art requires BOTH an objectively
real
excellence AND a trained perception.

You may want to read what Kaikhosru Sorabji. said about Brahms, Beethoven
and other 'excellent' composers, or Harry Partch's comments that western
music died with Monteverdi, only to be reborn in the 20th century. Were
Sorabji and Partch blind (sic) to "objective real excellence"?

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.

I have met few scientists who believe that science is objective. Many,
possibly including Einstein, think it is relative.

I understood a long time ago that certain world views requires an absolute
point of reference, or else they would fail. This 'fixed point' can be a
'North Star' towards which one strives, or it may be a post to which one is
bound.

Your distance (travelled) may vary.

Best

Kevin



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