Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 12:44:27 EDT

I'm afraid I don't agree that intention counts for much. A TOTALLY deaf
person (no bone conduction or vibration senses, even) could intend to
create music -- whatever it was, it would be essentially random. Not noise,
but random. No connection to the intention. Is that music? I don't think so.

So as far as I'm concerned that has to be some objective correlative to the
musical intention, and it has to be audible to (educated, anyway) listeners
regardless of whether they know the intention or not.

In other words, music is a certain sort of sound object. Just like a
painting is a certain sort of paint object.

This is not an easy subject to debate because we can all be fooled. The
situation is analagous to the Turing test. A program might fool some
people, some of the time, into thinking it was a conscious, intelligent
person even when it most obviously was not. Similarly, some noises might
fool some people, some of the time, into thinking they are music.

But I think if you listen long enough, and learn enough, and ask for more
music from the same source, it becomes clear after a while.

Original Message:
From: Richard Wentk
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:02:20 +0100
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

At 11:07 30/06/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>hello / heay / yo
>back to basics - music is organized sound or can music be random such as
>th acoustic or electroacoustic soundscape ?

"The creation, organisation and/or perception of sound with aesthetic

I don't think there is a God's ear (strange idea - I think I feel a CD
coming on...) definition of music. Like all the arts, we define them by the
actions we take around them and our beliefs about them, not by inherent
qualities fixed in cosmic and eternal permanence.


mail2web - Check your email from the web at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST