The relativism is not avoidable, but it need not be a lowering of standards. All absolutes are conventionally described, defined, and either hewed to or overturned.
Music is sound, sound can be music
It was hard to make a title that fit what I wanted to talk about. Reading the thread about the deleted Hip-hop/Rap thread was an interesting window on some of the mindset here (some of which was unfortunate and depressing too but that's the world we live in....). What struck me was the attitude that if it's not played on a traditional instrument it's not music, or it just "sucks" in some way.
First, many instruments today, lots of brass ones especially or guitars didn't exist until the last 100-200 years. Do they not make music?
But you have to learn to use it skillfully, so I read. Knowing how to read and write music surely qualifies one yes? Talented even, if your can write complex pieces?
Ok, then. 25 years ago I worked with early digital audio systems using sequencers and MIDI. My partner graduated with honors from Berklee college of music and was a composer. He wrote some amazing work without touching anything more than a mouse and keyboard. Was it music?
10 years later I worked with another person who did incredible work in sound collage and electronic music. They did use a controller that is essentially a piano keyboard but it only sends note data to the system. She could play wonderfully on a real piano but often used non-linear editing and manipulation to produce innovative soundscapes. Was it music?
There are other examples where people do all sorts of experimental things with sound and not a single traditional instrument is ever used. Is it art?
My point here is if you don't like something that's fine. It doesn't make you a bad, stupid, or ignorant person. Neither are you those things if you don't understand why people create things or how they choose to do it. Of course, you are free to say what you like, that's your right. But don't be surprised when you are considered ignorant and intolerant when all you have to say is negative and derogatory remarks.
Life is too short to spend energy on things you don't like. Move on past and participate in the things you enjoy and let others enjoy theirs. Or maybe open you mind and give something more than a cursory glance if curiosity gets you, explore, read, listen and learn. You may decide it really isn't for you, but then again you might.
First, many instruments today, lots of brass ones especially or guitars didn't exist until the last 100-200 years. Do they not make music?
But you have to learn to use it skillfully, so I read. Knowing how to read and write music surely qualifies one yes? Talented even, if your can write complex pieces?
Ok, then. 25 years ago I worked with early digital audio systems using sequencers and MIDI. My partner graduated with honors from Berklee college of music and was a composer. He wrote some amazing work without touching anything more than a mouse and keyboard. Was it music?
10 years later I worked with another person who did incredible work in sound collage and electronic music. They did use a controller that is essentially a piano keyboard but it only sends note data to the system. She could play wonderfully on a real piano but often used non-linear editing and manipulation to produce innovative soundscapes. Was it music?
There are other examples where people do all sorts of experimental things with sound and not a single traditional instrument is ever used. Is it art?
My point here is if you don't like something that's fine. It doesn't make you a bad, stupid, or ignorant person. Neither are you those things if you don't understand why people create things or how they choose to do it. Of course, you are free to say what you like, that's your right. But don't be surprised when you are considered ignorant and intolerant when all you have to say is negative and derogatory remarks.
Life is too short to spend energy on things you don't like. Move on past and participate in the things you enjoy and let others enjoy theirs. Or maybe open you mind and give something more than a cursory glance if curiosity gets you, explore, read, listen and learn. You may decide it really isn't for you, but then again you might.
Showing 5 responses by hilde45
@frogman I agree to disagree about relativism. Relativism is a rather complicated topic, and it’s very time consuming merely to define terms. I doubt we’ll make much progress here, and there’s a lot written already. It's deep water, so put your flippers on. |
OP, enjoyed your post. The fundamental point, for me, is a pragmatic one. Things are what we need or want them to be. All definitions depend on usefulness. If I need to throw out some trash, that cylinder over there is a "trash can." If I need to change a light bulb and the cylinder (turned over, supports my weight) allows me to reach the light, it is now a "step stool." Neither definition is more primary than the other except insofar as I take it more often than the other. (I know many people who have converted various objects into "speaker stands." Those things are, in fact, now speaker stands.) Everything is what it is taken AS. That fundamental pragmatic point includes "sound," "noise," "music," and even "trolls." The hard part isn’t coming up with definitions. The hard part is negotiating about which ones we want to agree on. |
@frogman Yes, progress indeed! You chose a great sentence: "What is wrong with the notion of objects existing “independently” of conceptual schemes is that there are no standards for the use of even the logical notions apart from conceptual choices. (Putnam 1988: 114)" Putnam gets at the point I was trying to make. The notion that we can affix a label ("objects" or "music" or "noise") with the label "true" is one requires that we know this label is anchored in a reality outside of our conceptual schemes. This is something we cannot do; everything we label is labeled with our concepts, our words, and connect to our schemes -- and our purposes. That is why the relativist position is impossible to overturn. That said, what Putnam maintains -- and which I was trying to convey -- is that conceptual schemes can contain labels which are very, very stable, because they are part of forms of life which we have staked ourselves in. We see the most rigid examples of these labels in our logical terms ("and" "but" "or" etc.) and that is why Putnam mentions "logical notions." Hope that helps. |
@frogman I see better now. Thanks for the clarification. I think it puts you, me, and Putnam much closer together than I realized. I followed Putnam's career and wrote a book in which he featured. In the end, he attacks relativism, but it is such a wooly word, it's very hard prey to catch. Rorty does a good job of elucidating the issue. In the end, Putnam remains committed to pragmatism and perspectivism (which many equate with relativism because they're both anti-absolutisms), but because of Putnam's background in science, mathematics, and logics, he's a bit more realist-leaning than some others in that camp. We're really in the weeds here. so I suggest, now, that we agree to agree. |