So, Derek, if you accept that no general characteristic is true of all valid music, why do you insist that some 19C Salon painting lacks some characteristics of your choice of valid art? If relativism is ok in music, why not visual art as well? Or are you saying that whether or not music has tune, melody, etc., is no guide to its quality as music? If so, then why does nearly everyone prefer tune and melody or claim it's present when others say it's not? In that case we simply haven't identified the necessary characteristic of tune or melody or some are wrong in their appraisal of it or tune or melody are irrelevant altogether. It comes down to subjectivity (as Cheerskep would agree, I think) and what you project onto the outer world: your tunes and melodies; your visual values (aesthetic, even if you deny the term). And isn't cacophany a musical device, even a sort of melody?
WC sounds without tune or melody can be music why can't those 19C paintings you say are not art be art? Can't we simply say that they do they lack why do you insist that some 19C French Salon paintings are not art? Why not apply the same "rule of inconsistency" to --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a footnote on the speaker's comment about > understanding music > meaning being able to hum the tune. > > I am coming increasingly to the view that the idea > of a 'tune' (or > melody - or theme) is only relevant to specific > periods of music and > is by no means a general characteristic of music at > all times and in > all cultures. So, even if understanding music meant > 'being able to > hum the tune' (!!!!) it would only apply to some > music not all. > > If there is a musicologist on the list perhaps > he/she would like to > comment. (I am a not one.) > > DA > > Music lover that I am -- I will happily agree that > I have "never understood > > music in my life" - when talking about how its > made with a musician -- or it's > > history with an historian -- or its business with > a businessman (even though > > I'm in that business) > > > > All that stuff is irrelevant to making the kind of > distinctions that concern > > me. > > > > > > ************* > > Derek wrote: > > > > "My reference to the 'average person' was, as I > said, simply to cut > > short her claim that understanding music meant > understanding the > > mechanics of music (changes of key etc). I was > very surprised she > > started off with that. How could that be the > relevant meaning? If it > > were, I have never understood any music in my life > and neither have > > millions of other music lovers who, like me, can > barely read music." > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Click to for great deals on pitching machines and > baseballs. > > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijl41qOUJEmooDRMTCoBMysM8 > > bHkECmaaDgEgMcnVVIntcNjm/ > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
