Re: Science, Knowledge, Understanding, Art and Wonder


Subject: Re: Science, Knowledge, Understanding, Art and Wonder
From: Morgan Sutherland (skiptracer@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 10:49:50 EDT


 "There is more in a composition than a witty
juxtaposition of sounds/notes."
 Are you sure?
 "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..."
 Where are you getting this stuff? You're jumping to conclusions.
  I love how people take your argument and then use it against you.
You might notice that I was accusing YOU of being binary. Not even binary.
 There's a difference between making sweeping generalizations about music
and having deep insight into your own music. I respect the way that you
approach music,
I think it's the best way, but to assume that the rules that guide your
pursuit
apply to all music and musical education is silly.
 "- Do we need to be a botanist to enjoy the beauty of a rose (jouir de
la beauté d'une rose is better but there is no such thing as jouir in
English ;-)"
 You don't think botony will *effect* the way you percieve a rose? I would
argue
that metaphorically a botonist would *understand *a rose. Would you not
agree
that understanding music is neccessary to creating it?
And to reference John Cage, what makes a rose beautiful? What makes you
think I *want* to enjoy one? =)
 Mind you I did not read any replies before the ones that you made on
September 12
as I just joined this list.

 On 9/13/05, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay <tremblap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> contrasting stuff.
>
> 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