Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
From: Richard Wentk (richard@skydancer.com)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 16:13:43 EST


At 20:52 24/02/2005, you wrote:

>What tools and criteria... other than the user defined ones.

That's all there ever is.

> > For sure. But they'll also leave gaps in the education of someone
> > interested in creating hiphop or rap. And many other styles too.
>
>The problem is that I see less of a gap in my current program for someone
>interested in creating hiphop or rap than for soemone interested in creating
>ea.

The gap is possibly bigger than you imagine, because both of these styles
rely far more on timbre than on - say - harmony.

And there are possibly a few other considerations too.

>Music, on the other hand offers very useful insights into the forms that it
>encompases, (IMV) the insights that are offered do not lead to ea.

That depends on the level of abstraction at which music is being taught.
Strict species counterpoint doesn't lead directly to EA. Counterpoint in a
more abstract sense can be very useful as a compositional principle in EA.

Music theory reminds me of Latin. No one speaks Latin any more, it's only
ever written for very exceptional reasons, and there are not many
situations where it's even useful to be able to read it.

But it does teach language students the fundmental linguistic elements of
grammar and sentence structure. And some of the old classics are worth
reading in their own right.

It's the ability to consider language at that more abstract level that
makes it useful. That and the fact that modern European languages are
either direct descendants of Latin or influenced by it.

So although it's only rarely directly useful, it opens up a new way of
looking at and understanding language that isn't accessible to people who
haven't studied it.

Music theory is similar. Some archaic styles - like film music - use a
rather antiquated vocabulary that's directly descended from classical
practice. More modern styles have a much more distant association. And EA
is more like a synthetic language - not directly related at all, but still
using some similar ideas and practices at a much more abstract level.

>The term music, must be qualified in someway, so that when speaking of ea
>by using the
>word music one will understand what is acttually being discussed.

That assumes EA has a closed and familiar definition. I suspect it doesn't.

Richard



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST