Subject: Re: Art, EA, music, tonality...
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 18:59:15 EST
Quoting Eliot Handelman <email@example.com>:
> Music isn't about sound so much as recog.
Exactly. It is about the recognition of sounds; much like speach, much less
like dreams. What do we call the understanding of an unrecogniseable sound?
Could we call that EA? And could we, based on previous posts, call music and
speach forms of EA too?
Should we find a better word than EA to represent all this?
I can see where dreams come in in art, from the creative side of things.
Composing music is, to me, much like dreaming, as is composing a comic strip.
Like in a dream, there is no limit to what can be done, and I have my whole
life's experience that I can incorporate into the piece, put together with
random thoughts and human error.
But from the point of view of the audience, art loses its creative aspect and
becomes an object to be studied. From this perspective, I can no longer
associate music to dreaming.
> (Newton pointed out that the rays that we perceive
> as colors are actually colorless),
(aside) This statement is disturbing to me. Didn't Newton study the phenomenon
of reffraction?, and how does he explain the fact that non-colour-blind people
could agree on what colour is what? Rays percievable as a certain colour MUST
have a characteristic that our brain/eyes can distinguish.
> > Was the first lullaby necessarily musical?
> Was it accompanied by rocking? Was the effect to calm the
> baby? How did it do this? Was it repetitive? It may not have
> been a tune so much as a sort of strophe (so someone once suggested
> to me) that goes back and forth between two tones (I'm told,
> something like a lower fourth, down and up, and then repeat) but
> obviously we can't know. Does the infant feel love in the voice
> and in the singing? Is love built-in?
> The Evol. psychs say yes, because we see a clear advantage in
> big-brained heavy-headed creature that needs years of pampering
> protection etc. Music related to love? Complicated issue:
> I'll discharge a simple "almost certainly" here.
> 1st Nation (west coast canada) put their babies by th windows and let th rain
> be th lullaby . .
Ok, so according to yous, the first lullaby was NOT NECESSARILY musical
(although it could have been)... So the next question I'd like to pose is:
Was the first lullaby necessarily EA?
> > 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.
> I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't think I'd call
> that EA for two reasons. First, music/art isn't about understanding
> -- that's the theorist's job, which he usually fails at. music/art
> is about activating, to my mind -- creating "impression" by way
> of "expression." That's complex and unpredictable and becomes
> like language at the point where the expressive or impressive potential
> has been exhausted. viz "shock of the new," etc.
Again, I would like to focus on art from the perspective of the
listener/audience. A listener can't always know who the artist is behind the
sound, or if there even IS an artist behind that sound. Sounds of nature (eg.
rain) could be percieved/labeled as art, EA or even music...
> As to mom #1 stuff, you might look up "mitochondrial eve," our
> commmon mom, though not the first hs. At any rate good enough
> for common music origin.
"She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today
w.r.t. matrilineal descent" She made her momma proud.
> As to what is man, in me view, he is a musician. So that
> rather begs the question but at least helps us know we're doing
> something we should be doing.
> -- eliot
You're right: "MAn" "is" a "musician"... (Humans) (are but are not excluded to
being) (able to understand and reproduce sound patterns according to their
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:07 EST