Re: OT: Musical languistics

I can relate somewhat to this.  I guess my need for music to have a strong
rhythmic undercurrent is so that I can dance, shake my fists in the air, nod
my head vigorously, sing out against it!  I also need for it to be boldly
original, though, to take some aural risks, which defeats gimmickry.  As for
conceptual art, I've always hated the "rooms full of dirt" (sort of like the
pings and silence that I wrote about in a previous post).  I went to the
L.A. County Art Museum (the one with the treacherous tarpits!) when I was
seventeen, along with our art history class.  There was a big room full of
dirt.  It was called "room full of dirt."  When I scoffed at it, I was told
loftily that this was "conceptual art."  It was "intellectual."  Did I only
like "pretty" art?  I feel same way about art as I do about music.  My
eyeballs have to fall out of my head.  The art can't just BE in my head.

Sarah (who likes everything from fantasy art to graphic novels to the Fauves
to Paul Klee's "The Twittering Machine.")

Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."



----- Original Message -----
From: "michael poxon" <m.poxon@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Musical languistics


> But is the purpose of music to be "interesting"? I thought it was meant to
> do something to the spirit/soul, make you want to get up and boogie, weep,
> or what have you. Do only musicologists find music interesting? For me, a
> lot of (though not all) modern classical music is like a lot of (though
not
> all) modern art - just soulless gimmickry, with a great deal of the
> Emperor's new Clothes about it. It won't do just to claim that a piece of
> 'art' is symbolic of (insert intellectual-sounding cliché here...). If you
> need to be told it's symbolic, it ain't art.
> Mike (who likes everything from Palestrina to Hawkwind and lots more
> besides)

Replies