RE: 'If an act and its objects is called music for just cause by a learned group of experts, then it is likely art by the mere virtue of being called music,...'
Leaving aside the non sequitur that something is art by virtue of its being music, I am always puzzled by Frances's touching faith in what she calls a 'learned group of experts'. Who are these august individuals? Where do they live? How do we know what they think? How do they get to acquire the formidable status they seem to have? If only I knew just one of their names... DA Frances refers one cae ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Music and all that jazz Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:04:22 -0400 > Frances to Derek and others... > If an act and its objects is called music for just cause > by a learned group of experts, then it is likely art by > the mere virtue of being called music, which would likely > even include impoverished musical forms like the songs > found in the genres of jazz and rock and pop and folk and > native music. This remark is not meant to defend such > forms, but it is difficult for me to agree that there > might be even bad music that is not art. On the other hand > , if an object merely posited as art by someone other than > an expert is agreed by a group of experts to be bad, then > the object would simply not be art. My tentative > conclusion hence is that for an object to be agreed as > music it must be art, and for an object to be agreed as > art it must be good. If an outside individual person > should disagree with the provisional expert opinion of > some relevant communal people as to what might be good and > art and even music, then that marginalized person is > likely wrong or sick. The aural arts as audible works of > fine art or folk art, that are heard by the ears of > listening persons, of course need not be limited to > musical notes or vocal sounds, but could also include > sonic noises or acoustic silences as say sound sculpture. > The key issue in dispute here is perhaps not what objects > might be candidates to join the class, but rather might be > how broad the sphere or class called art should be held by > experts, if indeed artworks can be classified at all. > > Derek partly wrote... > You can classify jazz, rock and pop how you like. I will > still say they are impoverished musical forms.
