Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 19:47:37 EST


When you're walking in the forest and a cute yellow bird sits in the tree by
the way and wistles what you hear to be a beautiful tune, perhaps this bird is
not 'singing' but doing something greater!

It would be homo-centric of us to impose a musical limit on the sounds of
nature's creatures. All you know is what you hear/percieve.

FYI:
Life was so brutal back then that the first lullaby was a heavy-metal tune.

nick

Quoting macCormac <macCormac@shaw.ca>:

> FYI: th first lullaby was based on bird songs and th falling rain :-) she
> laughs
>
> SOUNDS a byt homo-centric . . . to assume that birds et al are not
> 'singing'
> beyond searching or seeking grub .. is th love song o birds and roses not
> 'proof'
> enough that horses too have a debate going on with guliver and proof rock et
> al. .
> . . or was that ego or gender centric ?
>
> perhaps there is music in their silence and we make far too much noise . . .
>
> best, macCormac / grrrl o th species
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.sylvi.ca / na / da / bc
> siwash rock & soundscape composition
>
> n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca wrote:
>
> > So, what did music evolve from?
> > Was the first lullaby necessarily musical?
> >
> > EA
> > Music Language Other
> >
> > ALthough it's not exactly clear yet, I have recently come to a new
> > understanding of EA. The general root EA branches into music, language and
> > other. I understand EA as sound-based understanding.
> >
> > There are things within sounds that we are inately programmed to respond
> to,
> > and there are things within sounds that we are socially conditioned to
> respond
> > to. This is all EA.
> >
> > Now if we were to consider animal sounds...
> > Wolves howling. Birds singing. Water Falling. Are these musical or EA? Of
> > course, we can't experience a wolf's cry from its point of view. From our
> > perspective, we could choose to listen musically or not, but the fact that
> it's
> > EA remains, (there is meaning in that sound). When a bird squeeks, it is
> OUR
> > ears that make that sound into music, if we so choose to. Again, there is
> > nothing inately musical about a sound.
> >
> > I believe "man" created "song". -- Humans created music.
> > It follows that, for a time, humans existed without a concept of music, and
> it
> > makes sense because there is no Real point to music other than social. So
> > as "man" "civilized", so did the human concepts of music and language
> progress.
> >
> > nick
> >
> > Quoting Richard Wentk <richard@skydancer.com>:
> >
> > > At 19:03 26/02/2005, you wrote:
> > > >I don't believe there was a "mother #1" : Eve. or Noah's wife?
> > > >You choose to assume that song existed for as long as "man" existed.
> But
> > > did
> > > >not "man" create song?
> > >
> > > Bird song, whale song, cicada song and a billion or so years of
> pre-human
> > > noise making predated the first lullaby.
> > >
> > > Music and art have their roots in evolutionary development. The
> differences
> > > between what humans do and animals do seem to be more a question of
> degree
> > > than of anything completely unique and revolutionary.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
>

-- 



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