Arlo said: I agree, [that music is intellectual] and I don't see this as a problem. I think its easiest when you don't conflate the "music" with the "aesthetic experience". That is, "music" is a collection of symbols (intellect) which when done masterfully point "out" of the picture, provide a metaphor by which the interactants (those viewing, listening, etc.) are able to, for a brief moment, see "outside" the structure of intellect and gaze into the abyss.
dmb says: It seems reasonable to say that music theory and the system of musical notation is intellectual but I think music itself, organized sound, is older and deeper than language. It communicates with an immediacy that makes the use of symbols unnecessary. I mean, its almost like sad music is not symbolic of sadness, does not refer to sadness and does not even JUST evoke sadness. It IS sad, directly, in and of itself. If you know what I mean. Can you tell I've been reading Dewey? Arlo said: What Pirsig tried to do in ZMM was point out that ALL our endeavors can be done artfully, and as such even in simple things like repairing a motorcycle can produce art-metaphor in which the object becomes a conduit for escaping "intellection" (as some call it). dmb says: Right, and when he was feeling cranky he complained about the quality of a cultural enviroment in which artfulness is way too rare. Arlo said: It may help to liken music to mathematics in this particular instance. Both are the arrangement of symbols toward the expression of some symbolic representation. And both, when done properly, open up the door to an aesthetic experience that transcends the particular symbols. The construction of a motorcycle is the same. ...So my caution is to be weary of even unintended snobbery (but especially deliberate snobbery) that elevates "music" above other activity, be it literature or mechanics. dmb says: Again, I'd say that the mathematical structure of music is a much later discovery, etc. Music itself can be played and enjoyed without any knowledge of notation systems, mathematical structutres or theories. Continuing with my alternative view, I'm thinking that one of the things that makes music so powerful is its non-symbol, immediacy. In that sense, it is as close to pure asethetic form as we're likely to get. I'd even go so far as to say that its vibratory nature makes it sort of deeply imbedded in the physical universe and the rhythm of it ties it to all creatures with a heartbeat. And I could (Hail to the Chief) also add (God Save the Queen) that music (We Will Rock You) plays an important (Silent Night, Holy Night) role at the social level. Plus it has a good beat and its easy to dance to. So yea, music is intellectual in some sense, in some cases and in some forms but its also that last thing music is. You know, in the evolutionary sense. Arlo said: In other words, the "art" that derives from "music, as from all activity, occurs when the symbols therein are arranged or ordered in such a way as to produce a metaphor powerful enough to shatter the boundaries and foundations of our intellectual description of reality. dmb says: Yes, some art is truly world-shattering. But if you'll indulge my Deweyesque contradictions, I was thinking that music has a huge advantage in his conception of the aesthetic experience. His description of "an" experience, as he callled it, pretty well describes the shape of most any song. There is an initial qualitative immediacy that sets the mood and pace and direction, this quality is developed, elaborated and then it all finally comes together near the end where the whole preceding sequence is "consummated". And like the fact that the term "consummation" is so suggestive because this notion of aesthetic experience, "an" experience, is supposed to be sampatico with the natural rhythms of life. Arlo said: The "music" is the ordered arrangement of the symbols. Intellectual activity. The resultant "aesthetic experience" is neither contained in, nor part of, the "music". It is a moment of Zen, when our windows on the world are cast wide open, that may just as easily be triggered by a collection of sounds or a collection of gears. dmb says: Dewey held that the products of artists are only part of the story. He thought that "art" was what happened to and in experience rather than the thing, the object of art. Like a good meal, the cook is thinking of the dinner guest while she works and the dinner guest can more or less taste what happened in the kitchen before she arrived. In this way the artist and the appreciator are joined and necessary to each other. Art is about a whole lot of things coming together, ain't it? Its so exciting to disagree with you about something, Arlo. A rare treat. Thanks, dmb _________________________________________________________________ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
