Re: "Repetition defines music"

[Michał Wiernowolski <mihalw@gmail.com>]

On 16.05.2014 11:58, benoit wrote:
> (...)
> Well, I'm currently having a go at writing a program generating Terry 
> Riley's "in C".
> I debug the program without listening to the actual output (a midi 
> file) but look at dumps and analysis of this output file.
> It's a bit like looking in the matrix ;=)
>
> I am not able read a staff (that would be the  "sound heard internally 
> within one's consciousness") but I can compare numbers and have an 
> idea of the music beeing generated.
> So is this music with the absence of sound?
> :=)
>
> Ben

Your example is interesting and a bit tricky, as it is aleatoric music. 
Still, I think my definition holds.:)

I was trying to say that sound is an inherent part of music. At the same 
time music is much more, something abstract or even metaphysical. You 
are asking in fact whether this something beyond is enough and my answer 
is no. This is a very direct answer, but not so radical if you realise 
the above statements do not contradict but complement each other.

Now, imagine you would want to explain what music is to someone that has 
never heard it before. (This sentence says it all btw.)
What would you do? Show him/her the score of "in C", the source code of 
your program or several midi file dumps?
Now, let's assume you've tried to explain what music is without playing 
it. Do you think the person would know what music really is?
Is it possible without the listening experience?

Michał