On 24/10/2009 21:18, "Saul Ostrow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My point is that when music takes music as its subject it generates primarily > formalist content that is the meaning, message or sense (reason) associated > with its forms, formats and disposition , as well as a full range of other > contents - as such we should be talking about forms and contents of a work of > art Thank you Saul, I understand better what you are trying to clarify, and detail. I have a singular problem with these sorts of divisions of form and content; that is once we have succeeded to distinguish them is it then possible to reintegrate them? Or if it is possible to distinguish one from the other, is it then the case that there is a problem with the artwork, here music. Also, what I am trying to get at is that music is also part of the exploration of the world of sound, and in that sense is a sound form about a sound content; in other words there are no differences between them; they are what they are. They lay before us aspects of sound in the environment. Sound is itself a worthy object and I am trying to say this without arguing for pure music. Also, I am not arguing that all music has this purpose and structure, but that some are, and many others could be considered so. I hope this is clear. -- http://braesidecottage-garden-music.blogspot.com/ Toodle-pip, Allan.
