RE: "Repetition defines music"

[<mike@michaelplishka.com>]

                So, does this mean that we should allow the rules and embrace them so that they can be broken and challenged?  If that is the case, then let’s build a database of “sufficient and necessary” so that we can break them.  There are always exceptions, the challenge is to make one memorable. J

 

 

From: Kris Hartung [mailto:krispen.hartung@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: "Repetition defines music"

 

> Which then leads us to the question, what is sufficient or necessary to define music? ;-)

Wow, that is such a tough question.  Starting from what is necessary, I suppose we could say that “sound” in the rawest form is necessary.   But then again there are pieces of music done historically that are silent, right?  Round and round we go....always an exception to a proposed rule.  I don’t know that I can confidentially forward any hypothesis on what is sufficient or necessary, which can withstand counter-example.  We’re left with default subjectivism, anything goes.  I’m good with that.  Rules prompt people to break and challenge them, thus redefining the discipline and subject matter, or deconstructing it.