Phil Daley wrote:
At 4/2/2006 10:34 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>On Apr 2, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
>
>> At 4/1/2006 08:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>>
>> >But the requirement Phil is placing on these pieces is completely
>> >arbitrary and if applied honestly would eliminate a lot of the works
>> >he considers to be music.
>>
>> I agree that improvisation is not notatable.
>>
>> But, if an entire piece is improvisation, it is not music, it is
>> performance art.
>>
>
>Well, that's just plain wrong.
>
>What kind of extremely narrow definition of music do you have that
>excludes improvisation from music? Or non-pitched elements? Or
>difficult-to-notate elements? Or
>inconsistently-reproducible-in-performance elements?
Compare it to literature.
Is there a great piece of literature that hasn't been written down?
How about art?
Is the an art masterpiece that is not on canvas?
Since the root of "literature" refers to reading, your question is very
disingenuous. By definition, literature has to be written down.
By definition, music has to be heard. There's nothing in a definition
of music that I've ever read or heard that states that it has to be
written down.
I'm not sure what your point is in insisting that something isn't music
if it can't be written down. Can you cite ANY of the great reference
works on music which supports your definition?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
