RE: '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? '
A certain amount of confusion has crept in here. I wasn't talking about characteristics that qualify something as art (or not). I was saying that I did not think that melody - as least as we understand the term today - is a feature of all music (in the sense of all musical styles). Re: ' Or are you saying that whether or not music has tune, > melody, etc., is no guide to its quality as music?' Yes that is what I am saying. Re: 'If > so, then why does nearly everyone prefer tune and > melody or claim it's present when others say it's not?' As to the first bit: I don't think what 'nearly everyone prefers' is a good guide to the quality of soemthing as art or not. As to the second, I think the question is a tricky one (which is why i invited a musicologist to comment). What exactly is a tune or melody anyway? I tend to think of it as a kind of self-contained musical phrase - but that is clearly not good enough because a phrase can be very short. Does Gregorian chant have melody? I would say not. But maybe I am wrong. Definitions come into play again. I remember once hearing (on TV) some sacred chant by Korean monks It struck me as even more formless than Gregorian chant (though fascinating at the same time). I would have been very hard put to say it had melody of any kind. But again what do I mean by melody? Interestsing questions I think. Wish I knew more about the theory of music - or maybe musicology. DA PS: As for 19C Salon painting - it had all the characteristcs to qualify it as painting. It just wasn't art. > 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 > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
