Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Very good reasoning, Robert, and very well stated. However...[ahem, perhaps I need more coffee, too!]... I think your reasoning is presented somewhat in reverse. I believe "One can not make music by *accident* [unintentionally]. " is the premise and not the conclusion. All the other statements follow from this one. The premise places much weight upon willful intent and expression of the *creator* of the music. The *listener* of the music is not in this equation. Say that we reversed the situation. For example, I am sitting in my backyard listening to my wind chimes (and perhaps other background "noises"). I hear the sounds as music. That is, the sounds have the same effect on me as when I hear traditional musicians doing what they call playing music. I hear the wind chimes sounds as music because I *intend* to. Thus, the statement becomes, "One can not listen to music by *accident* [unintentionally]." But is not that new statement the same (functionally) as "I *intend* to interpret most sounds as not-music."? So if I change my intention (maybe *expectation* is a better word), I can hear all sounds as if they are music. Information theory states that the meaning of a message is in the receiver of the message. In accordance with this idea, music is defined (categorized as music) by the listener and not the creator. Of course, when we're being musicians, we're BOTH listener and creator (at least most of the time). I find a curious alternation of consciousness happens when I play, especially when improvising. As a creator, I must narrow what I do. Say that I'm adding to a loop. Of all the possible sounds, I can only chose one (this time). As a listener, I'm expanding my interpretation. When playing, my consciousness alternately narrows and expands. Perhaps that pleasant buzz when we play is partly due to this constant shifting. It certainly make us feel alive! [Now where is my coffee...] Dennis Leas ------------------- dennis@mdbs.com P.S. To my fellow listers, I apologize for including Robert's original message in nearly its entirety. But the discussion is hard to follow without it. > > Okay. > > The thread began with the assertion that all is perception [what they > meant-btw- was *all is perspective*- which is *true*]. It was hinted that > there is no *good* nor *bad*, but thinking makes it so. > > I wanted to play on how *perception* actually works. We *hear* what we > *attend* to--- well, actually, we hear all kinds of things, but that >which > we *intentionally* hear is different [we all have opinions and ideas >about > this, whether biological, philosophical or spiritual]. Someone had said that > music was *just vibrations of atoms*. I wanted to suggest that that is about > as close as saying, *an airplane crash is just material, reshaping*. Not if > your wife was on there. And from who's perspective is it *just* >re-shaping > material??? > > So... My point [ahem. need coffee]: If, while beating someone with a >pipe, > there happen to be noises [vibrations]- - - that doesn't make it music. >If > you [or a bystander] notice that the thuds and pops have a rhythmic quality- > - - that still isn't music. But if you begin to modify your approach, in > order to enhance the musical qualities: then, it's music. Your >*intention* > had to change [your perception and perspective can stay the same]. Further, > you had to have a *constructive* [a wish to build, etc] intention. > > [I regret the metaphor. It's one of those, best not elaborated on] > > One can not make music by *accident* [unintentionally]. You can program a > computer [intention]. You can throw bricks at pianos. But no one ever >made > music by accident. Not once. At some point the intention was there. Not only > must you have the *intention* to make music, but it must be > constructive/benevolent[with the aim to communicate with as little static as > possible]/harmonic [by any definition]/cooperative [of the > elements/creator/listener]: in other words: *Good* *Intended*...[as opposed > to chaos/noise/pain/damage/rendering auseinander]. > > Of course this brings into question what makes apperception different >from > perception--- what makes attention different from intention, etc. > > Even I am [almost] smart enough to know that this isn't the place to > speculate further... >