Some interesting points brought up by Will, and QCC.
But, I'll keep poking at Dev 'cause it's more fun(ny)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dev
Yes, I can obviously see how those images may elicit some emotion. But just as you say everyone will see it differently, so do I claim that, since only a select few will see a musical idea in it, it can't universally be considered a piece of music.
|
I am in
NO way talking universally here - there are no absolutes in music anymore. I'm specifically saying that were I to place those images on a music stand in front of seasoned improvisors, the images would be interpreted musically. Also, as in standard notation, there is a language; of course different performers will interpret differently, but there will be remarkable similarities in their interpretations....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dev
To me, seeing this as music is just one interpretation - which means it can't be called "sheet music" because, just as many WILL see it that way, many will NOT.
|
Again, I'd never call it "sheet-music". I don't give a shit if John Q. Public can recognize it as a "score" or as "sheet-music", but that the musicians can draw something meaningful from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dev
On the other hand, sheet music with standard notation, or nonstandard notation with obvious and apparent instruction cannot be interpreted as NOT music because it fits the definition of music - that is, there is some clear instructions on what sounds to produce. That is not the case with this and similar pieces, and the excuse "you should just know it's music already" is as ludicrous as asking me to read your mind.
|
[to someone performing this piece] I don't want you to read my mind...I want you to read your own. It doesn't NEED to fit your definition of music - and
this is the whole reason I'm arguing with you!!!:
I want you to realize that there are other perspectives out there. All I want is for one of you kids to admit that PERHAPS your perspective isn't the be-all and end-all of musical interpretation.
...