[PD] Am I alone?

ailo ailo.at at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 20:25:08 CET 2011

On 01/30/2011 04:21 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
>> There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized,
>> so I find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general
>> fashion.
> Ok, let's say I follow all the links posted on a mailing-list, and all I
> find are tracks in which I want to fast-forward through the seemingly
> randomly-arranged noises until I get to the beginning of the «real
> stuff», and eventually I can't fast-forward anymore because I'm already
> at the end. What do you call this ? When is one allowed to generalise ?
> (btw obviously I'm not talking about pd-list !)
>> Can we even define what music is?
> Depends on the level on which you expect to define it. You'd have more
> chances if you try to define it on a sociological/psychological level.

I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone
can agree on what is the definition of music?
I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for
everyone else.
I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage
people to do their own thing. So, maybe that's why many of us would
rather not generalize. Maybe there's no other reason to avoid it?

If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no
choice. That goes for the work of an individual as well as a group.

>> I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or
>> should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong
>> in music, that is a sort of morality.
> That's usually called beauty, ugliness and æsthetics, though otoh lyrics
> could be subjected to the same judgements of morality as books do.

Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like
ugly things, does that make these things wrong? No. We can also choose
to do something because it's pretty and feels wrong.
That is why I choose to use the word morality. When one decides what to
use in music, or decides not to decide, or whatever, it is based on a
sense of right and wrong. It could feel right one moment, and wrong the
next, but it's always a part of our evaluating process.

Morality is maybe not the first word one connects with music, but as a
philosophical term, I feel it is best suited for trying to explain what
is the most fundamental underlying mechanism for how we decide between
one and the other. When it feels right, we choose to do it because it's
right, or we choose not to do it because it's right. Either way, we make
a choice reflected on our (in the moment) sense of right and wrong.

>> In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints
>> can be restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone
>> else, that is a way to get organized?
> What do you mean by rational ?

(I'm sure I'm using the wrong terms)
By rational moralistic standpoints, I meant, a framework of thoughts,
not the feeling you have, but what you have formulated. My experience is
that this makes my music sound bad.
Don't know why I threw that in. I guess all of my writing is a clutter
of seemingly unrelated ideas.

>  _______________________________________________________________________
> | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC


More information about the Pd-list mailing list