Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:54:37 -0500, "Dennis Leas" <dennis@mdbs.com> wrote: >Golly this has turned into quite a thread! > >I think "blanket statements" lead to a "warm discussion" (excuse the pun, >but it IS Friday). Consider the statement IN CONTEXT. Context, context, context, people! As posted: ----- > but what do *your* ears tell *you*?) That any single sound is not music. Music is by definition a combination and sequence of sounds ----- Now, if you'd like to second-guess what my ears tell me, I guess that's your prerogative. Not that anyone could have any logical grounds for such a process, but whatever turns you on. Now, let's address the concept of this being "wrong". In terms of whether my *opinion* is technically correct, let's apply the standard razor of the dictionary. Webster's Revised Unabridged: 1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i. e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties, dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art of combining tones in a manner to please the ear. 2. (a) Melody; a rhythmical and otherwise agreeable succession of tones. (b) Harmony; an accordant combination of simultaneous tones. 3. The written and printed notation of a musical composition; the score. 4. Love of music; capacity of enjoying music. 5. (Zo["o]l.) A more or less musical sound made by many of the lower animals. See Stridulation. Well, gee. It appears that BY DEFINITION, "sound" *is* plural in music. Clearly, there exists at least one definition in which this is not true, but I also clearly do not intend that definition. If you choose to commit the fallacy of equivocation regardless, feel free to do so -- with the understanding that no conclusion reached through this process will be logically valid, nor will it have any bearing on the validity of my OPINION.