Subject: Re: Science, Knowledge, Understanding, Art and Wonder
From: Pierre Alexandre Tremblay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 03:44:04 EDT
> How can you define this in such a concrete manner?
I don't know if I express myself so badly, but I do not understand how
you could consider concrete my comparison of the
reception/perception/esthesic considerations music with the flower and
the botanist ? I ment exactly what was Mr Newby said in other words,
and that Mr Bouhalassa said also. And the Greeks talk about that also
about 2500 years ago. There is more in a composition than a witty
juxtaposition of sounds/notes.
Anyway, please stop dropping this looser line about difference between
music approach. I don't know a lot of composer of my generation that
cares about aesthetic boundaries. I personally do my rap producing
with the deepest inspiration, the same with my post-free-jazz ensemble
and in my acousmatic/muxed-music. With both body and soul. And wit.
And intuition. And thoughts. And if I take all the music styles of my
friend/fellow composers, it goes from silence to noise, passing by
electronica, film music, post-modern and ultra-pop, most of them doing
Please let's get out of that binary thinking of hart-felt music vs
rational one. It is over simplistic, and people who advocates the
felt, intuitive music put at Devil's level the rationalisation process,
which is the best way to reinvent the wheel. Thinking about what we
are doing does not mean to over-rationalise it. In my case, it just
help me to stimulate my intuition, by avoiding to fall in the same
good-old tricks my lazy intuition dictates me at first glance...
Anyway, enough dancing about architecture, let's go build the next
Babel Tower ;-)
-- Pierre Alexandre Tremblay Lecturer in Computer Composition University of Huddersfield Queensgate Campus Huddersfield England HD1 3DH
(t) +44 (0) 1484 473608 or 472007 (f) +44 (0) 1484 472656
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST