Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place


Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 21:13:06 EDT


I don't think there's a single cfriterion for what's good in music, but still I think that historical, critical judgments over a long period of time are much more stable than they would be if they were arbitrary or tribal.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Morgan Sutherland <skiptracer@gmail.com>
Sent: Sep 14, 2005 8:40 PM
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place

> I don't think it's a stable concept. There is a disjuncture between
> innovativeness (sorry) as individually perceived, and as a structure in
> wider discourse. Individual perceptions of what may or may not sound
> innovative are mediated not only by the individual's experience up to
> the instance of perception, but also by a whole bunch of contextual
> variables we may apply to what we hear - so we may judge innovation in
> terms relative to a genre we associate the music with, and also within a
> historical context ('innovative for its time'). In any case, I'm still
> not sure that it has any bearing on whether one is engaged by the
> experience or not.

I find that it's a good thing when judgments are not so concrete. It
gives us things to talk about and things to think about. If there was
some general rule by which we could rate music, it would be quite
boring. Judging music by innovation is just another way of judging,
just like all of the other methods. Some other methods of judging?
"Coolness", ability to make you dance, ability to make you cry. And
yes, there are people who devote their music listening to rating music
based on those criteria, just as unstable as "innovativeness".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:11 EST