David,
No, nothing against, you gave a vivid description of your learned
way. The other thing is that my ''definition'' of deconstruction is
only half of the truth, but that's not important for now.
Besides, I keck at the sight of such incantations as
...one learns more form one note of a great player than...
and
...music is forever.
But poetry and love are rare today and should be respected.
I appreciate your faith in EM but will stay in my uncertain quest for
another answer.
J
_______
On 2009-02-03, at 20:29, David Rastall wrote:
On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Jerzy Zak wrote:
So you both think ''deconstruction'' as a method is bad. Hm, I
wonder if we all think about the same. But I fear you are
permanently deconstructing the music lying on your music stand and
joining up together some way..., aren't you?
Well, let's see...a piece of paper lying on a music stand; most
probably therefore a piece of music; letters arranged in such ways
that I can recognize lute tablature; the words "Allemande" and
"Robert De Visee" at the top tell me it's French Baroque lute music;
my efforts to understand it further lie in trying to interpret this
music in accordance with some generally-accepted very broad-brush
"French Baroque" paradigm. Or, in an even more "priviledged" mode of
interpretation, they would lie in my own personal response to what I
perceive as a sub-text peculiar to French Baroque. Perhaps the sub-
text is entirely my own, in which case I may be excluding any number
of possible ways to play De Visee in favor of that particular way
that fits my own perceptions i.e. my own experience impacting upon
itself to produce "meaning."
Unless I'm not reading the gifted bard(s) aright, wouldn't
deconstructionists argue against most of that?
Davidr
[email protected]
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
