17 Feb
2009
17 Feb
'09
9:25 p.m.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:09:08 +0100
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 08:56:09PM +0000, pete
shorthose wrote:
And if you could lay claim to the canonical definition
of words like art, music, painting and creative then all of that
would mean more than it does.
cheers,
pete.
Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net>
wrote:
(about Wagner's Rheingold ouverture)
What discussions of what constitutes good music
are you referring to ?
I commented on the example given in the original
post. Everybody can put beats on the Rheingold
ouverture, it's as easy as spraying some bright
yellow paint on a copy of a Rubens picture, and
the result is similar.
Apart from the idea 'this is possible' either
act takes nothing that could be called creative,
you don't need to be a musician or a painter to
do it. Anyone doing this and pretending to be
an artist is just fooling his audience. Apart
from the 'act' which may result in five minutes
of fame - look what I've done ! - it would be
completely irrelevant, except in a completely
different context that would have nothing to
do with either music or painting. It would a be difficult one for any beat detector
I'd say,
and any beats would totally destroy it. There's enough life
in it with just the three Rheintöchter.
This is really an argument about semantics. Surely it's easier to
more clearly define what you mean by good music than it is to
fight over who best embodies the meaning of the original word which
is by now utterly bastardised. There are many different factors that
contribute to a person deciding that a given piece of music is good.
If you want to exclude any of them then you should define those
exclusions from the outset, if only to avoid the controversy that
will arise as a result of that omission.