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


Subject: Re: Re : (junk yard dog in) hidden place
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 09:41:29 EDT


Morgan Sutherland wrote:

>>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".
>
>

why do we need to judge?

>
>
>
>

-- 
99% of aliens prefer Earth
--Eminem

www.iriXx.org www.copyleftmedia.org.uk



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