Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Richard Wentk (richard@skydancer.com)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 16:44:23 EDT


At 16:17 01/07/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Similarly, I am not saying that expectation and context don't color our
>hearing of the object. They surely do. I am just saying that in the end if
>there is no music in the sound object as such, then there is no music.

Isn't that a circular definition though? You seem to be saying that if
sound is music, then it's music.

In any case - I think you're underestimating the extent to which
acculturation defines musical experience.

What's possibly more interesting is when acculturation somehow creates
*new* musical experience.

>I do get the point about ritual -- I simply don't care for it. What I want
>is music that means something regardless of the ritual or lack thereof.
>This doesn't mean that I hate the ritual, I love it. But I don't completely
>trust it.

I don't see how you can separate it from musical experience.

You have to remember most the ritual is unconscious. It's not like you sit
there thinking 'Okay, I'm taking part in a ritual now.' A lot of the more
cliched actions that surround music - from those moody artist photos, to
sitting still at a concert, or dancing around if it's a different kind of
concert - are so familiar and reliable ritual seems like the best word for
them.

>Again, I'm just trying to be critical about my own context. I'm trying to
>transcend myself. Perhaps you don't think that's possible.

I have no idea.

Meanwhile this, which is tangentially relevant:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/noscript.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?r2_voxpop

Richard



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